ASK Musings

No matter where you go, there you are.

Feminism Archive

Thursday

16

October 2014

0

COMMENTS

#Newsfail

Written by , Posted in Feminism, Politics, Reviews

Five Stars* (see update below)

There’s an awesome podcast out there called Citizen Radio, and it is amazing. The hosts are a comic and journalist, respectively, who record at their home and talk about news that either doesn’t get covered or that gets covered in ridiculous ways. There is a ton of swearing, a lot of joking, some bizarre recurring characters (“Republican Baby,” for example), and a crap ton of actual, honest, news. Citizen Radio is independent media that seeks the truth without being worried about what sponsors are going to think. It’s funding wholly by members like me, but is available to everyone for free.

What does that have to do with this book? Well, this book is written by the hosts of Citizen Radio. It’s a progressive look at the ways in which the news fails: fails to tell us the truth, fails to cover the stories that matter, and fails to do what journalism should do. It’s an easy read (as in, it’s written conversationally; the topics themselves are not in any way light), and organized into general topics that are illustrated with examples of the ways the news has failed to cover the topics properly. The authors address class war, sexism, LGBT rights, gun control (or “massacre prevention,” as they wisely call it), drug policy and foreign policy. The chapters have fantastic titles like “We Know You Smoked Weed in College, Asshole: How the War on Drugs Is Destroying This Country.”

The book is great; when it ended I wished there were more for me to read. I wish they could have taken on even more topics – I feel like there’s enough failure of the media out there on such a wide range of topics that they could write at least one more book, if not two. They point out the problem with presenting “both sides” when there aren’t actually two reasonable sides. A good example of this is climate change. When the vast, vast majority of scientists find truth in something, it doesn’t make sense to have one climate change denier on to debate one scientist. That’s irresponsible. Of course, as Kilkenny and Kilstein point out, scientists (or experts on the issues) are rarely even invited to contribute to the discussions. Instead of the experts on an issue, or those directly impacted by an issue – say, reproductive health – being invited on, you get a panel of older white men. No white women, no women of color, just old white politicians talking about putting an Aspirin between a woman’s knees as effective birth control.

The book is filled with rough language, and includes a smattering of anecdotes from the authors’ lives. Much like their podcast, the book makes me laugh, makes me angry, and motivates me to take action. I read a more diverse array of topics now than I did before I found their podcast. I’ve always been what I’d describe as liberal; now I know that a better term to describe my beliefs is progressive. While some might pass this book off as preaching to the choir, the reality is that while much of what they say might be more radical than the average liberal’s thinking, they back it all up. They provide support for those beliefs that you might have been thinking, but haven’t seen supported when you watch CNN (or MSNBC, because really that station isn’t nearly as liberal as people think).

If you care about politics, journalism, the media, or any of the topics covered in this boo, I strongly urge you to pick it up. And next time you’re on iTunes, or Stitcher, please check out Citizen Radio.

*Feb 28, 2017: Yesterday some very concerning items came out about Mr. Kilstein. Multiple women have shared that he emotionally manipulated and abused them. That is horrifying to hear; Ms. Kilkenny (who split with Mr. Kilstein prior to these revelations) will be continuing Citizen Radio without him.

Thursday

9

October 2014

0

COMMENTS

Nope. Nope nope nope. Nope.

Written by , Posted in Feminism

Oh Microsoft. What. The. Fuck.

Alright. First off, read this.

*Sigh*

That is an example not just of the utter ignorance that exists around fair pay and sexism, but it is also a bright shining reminder of why we need more women in leadership positions in major corporations.

So, to remind folks, white women make about 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, with Black women and Latina women making even less. Even when controlling for things like experience and life choices, women STILL make less. And, as the above article points out, women are underrepresented in technology fields; just 17% of the tech jobs at Microsoft are filled by women.

If you are one of the women who makes it into technology but realizes that you are underpaid for the work you do, what should you do? Well, experts have suggested that women are more timid in salary negotiations, so we should be bold and brave and ask for what we deserve, right? Right?

Nope. In addition to studies that show women in interviews are often punished for attempting to negotiate salary, we now have a CEO of a major corporation (and one that is headquartered where I live) saying that women should just trust that the system will work itself out, even suggesting that there is something off-putting about a woman asking for what she wants.

Fuck. That. Noise. Just letting the system work itself out doesn’t work for me. It works for the men in charge, obviously, but it’s a whole different level of ignorance to assume that if you just let things be, the chips will fall in a fair and equitable manner. I mean, I guess that’s kind of the basic premise of libertarianism, but we know that’s bullshit. If power is concentrated with some people, they’ll work to keep that power. They won’t just benevolently start handing out power (or raises) to people as part of some magical karmic reward.

He later ‘clarified’ his comments on Twitter (I’m guessing someone in Microsoft’s corporate communications office lost their shit and wrote up a tweet for him) and acknowledged the need to eliminate the wage gap. Now, I get that people can misspeak. No one is perfect, and no one is on their game 100% of the time. But this was a conference specifically for women. Read the room, dude. If this is what he says when speaking publicly to women, I have to wonder what he says privately.

Sunday

24

August 2014

0

COMMENTS

What I’m Reading – August 24, 2014

Written by , Posted in Feminism, Politics

I had a fantastic week in Hawaii, but I have to admit I was relieved this morning to get out of the car at the grocery store and not immediately feel like I need a shower.

– Ferguson. The Front Lines of Ferguson (h/t @scATX)

– Ferguson. Nurse On Site Was Not Allowed to Tend Mike Brown

– Ferguson. Advice for Ferguson From the Supreme Court (h/t @AllisonKilkenny)

– The physical anger I feel at this disgusting editorial – I can feel my blood pressure rising. What. An. Asshole. I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me. (h/t @Karnythia)

– Some rationality to counter that crap above: For blacks, America is dangerous by default (via @PrisonCulture)

– Justice Ginsburg speaks the truth: Justice Ginsburg: America Has A ‘Real Racial Problem’ (via @ThinkProgress)

– Is there a way to stop this? The Catholic Church is Managing Many Local Hospitals. How Will it Affect Your Health Care?

– This hits close to home because my sister and her fiance are both trying to get tenured positions: The Adjunct Crisis: A Reading List

– We have some flexibility with out work hours and it’s pretty fantastic: Yes, Flexible Hours Ease Stress. But Is Everyone on Board?

Sunday

27

July 2014

0

COMMENTS

Playing the Whore: The Work of Sex Work by Melissa Gira Grant

Written by , Posted in Feminism, Politics, Reviews

Four Stars

“Sex work can indeed be empowering. But that is not the point. Money is the fucking point.”
– Melissa Gira Grant, Playing the Whore

playing the whore

Growing up I had three basic images of sex work (although I didn’t call it that then): the Julia Roberts / Pretty Woman version; the desperate, drug addicted woman; and the ‘sex slave’ in another country who was ‘rescued’ regularly on Dateline and 48 Hours. I didn’t spend time thinking about sex workers, but I did wonder why sex work was illegal in most places.

Recently I’ve become more interested in labor rights; specifically how society views certain types of labor as worthy (of money or legality) and others as deserving of criminalization or at least disdain. I live in Seattle, where the fight to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour was met with such charming arguments from non-shift workers as ‘what did a McDonald’s worker do to deserve that? I barely make that!’ as though people in the fast food industry aren’t working just as hard as people sitting in air conditioned offices, able to take coffee and bathroom breaks whenever they want.

This interest led me to Ms. Grant’s book. She takes a perspective that is missing in coverage of sex work and workers – one that does not start by asking ‘should people do sex work’ but instead asks what can we do to improve the lives of the people who work in that industry. The book is well-written and educated me on the topic, but when asked to describe it in a few sentences I have a hard time. Each chapter feels like a separate essay in a broader collection, and initially I was not sure of the main purpose of the book, as it covers a broad area. It is not a linear history of sex work, nor is it an argument (primarily) for the decriminalization or legalization of sex work. It is more than that.

Going back through my notes and rereading the portions I highlighted does bring more clarity to me. That is a function not of Ms. Grant’s writing, but of my need to re-read the book to better take in all of the information she shares. Her purpose seems to be to point out all of the ways in which people who seek to help sex workers fail, and in doing so Ms. Grant draws the reader’s attention to the need for the reader to take actions in solidarity with these workers, and support those who can change the conditions of their lives for the better, not pull them out of sex work or make it more dangerous for them to perform the work they do.

Ms. Grant illustrates this in many ways, including critiquing the fight against online posting of sex worker ads and the large anti-sex work organizations that purport to rescue sex workers from horrible conditions. Ms. Grant points out that so many of the ‘rescued’ end up in worse situations, with less agency than they had when doing sex work, and concludes that this stems from the inability of so many to see these women and men as people doing a job and not as one-dimensional ‘whores.’

“The goal, these antiprostitute advocates say, of eradicating men’s desire for paid sex isn’t ‘antisex’ but to restore the personhood of prostitutes, that is, of people who are already people except to those who claim to want to fix them.”

That’s the point, really. Sex workers are people first, people who make their money in the sex work industry. The problems these workers face doesn’t stem from the morality of sex work – they originate with the rest of society, which is invested in making sex work dangerous. The question the reader is left with – that I am left with – is what am I going to do to benefit these workers?

 

 

Thursday

29

May 2014

0

COMMENTS

What I’m Reading – May 29 2014

Written by , Posted in Feminism, Politics

This last week was a doozy. Much of what I’ll be posting below relates to the mass murder in Isla Vista. CN: Depressing, familiar misogyny.

– Most school shooting victims are women: What Elliot Rodger Said About Women Reveals Why We Need to Stamp Out Misogyny

– Oh Seth Rogen. Seth Rogen Is Not A Victim Of The Santa Barbara Killings (via @ThinkProgress)

– Word: Your Princess Is in Another Castle: Misogyny, Entitlement, and Nerds (via @AustinKelmore)

– A tumblr started just this weekend. Look at how many posts it already has: When Women Refuse

– Finally, thanks to Brittany for this:

Monday

21

April 2014

0

COMMENTS

I’m Allowed to Not Drink, You Know

Written by , Posted in Childfree, Feminism, Random

So the other day I was at an evening work event. There were some delicious appetizers, a bunch of beer and wine, and some fancy sparkling water. Anyone who knows me well knows that I’m not big into beer or wine, but that I love bubbles. So I grabbed a can of the seltzer and was enjoying it when a sweet and well-meaning former colleague came up and said “sparkling water? So? Any chance that a little one is on the way?” I laughed and said no, I just like seltzer water and am driving later, and left it at that. But it bothered me, and I realized it bothered me for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is this idea that adults are required to drink alcohol if it is available. It seems that adults are thought of as abnormal if we choose to drink non-alcoholic beverages when wine or beer are around, and I quite literally do not understand it. I don’t drink often, and when I do, I usually limit it to one or two drinks at the most. And I certainly don’t drink if I’m going to be driving in the next couple of hours. I like some alcoholic beverages (sparkling wine, Irish whiskey, rum-based tropical delights), but they are definitely what I would consider ‘sometimes’ things. I get that many people enjoy beer or wine every night, but I’ve reached the point where I find it a little bizarre that the default assumption of adulthood seems to be “evening + gathering of other adults = MUST DRINK.” Why is that? I don’t recall agreeing to that.

And to be as clear as possible – there is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with drinking wine. Or beer. Or liquor. I don’t think people should do that before driving, obviously, but I get that many people drink. A quick Googling for some data shows that in the U.S., on average, adults consume about 4 drinks per week. I probably consume maybe that many per month, so obviously some people are going to consume more. But somehow it has gotten so engrained in society that adults are going to drink at night, that someone choosing not to do so needs some sort of reason – in my case, since I’m a woman of childbearing age, it must be because I’m expecting. I don’t like that. I’d like to be able to choose whatever beverage sounds good and not have it somehow be a signal to the world that I’m in the midst of growing a human.

The second reason that bothered me is that whether I’m pregnant or not is really no one’s business. Again, anyone who knows me at all is VERY clear about the fact that if I’m pregnant, a) something has gone horribly, horribly wrong, and b) I’m not going to be pregnant for long. So even asking me that question shows that you and I? We’re not that close. And since we AREN’T that close, why would you feel it necessary to ask me such a personal question? If I were pregnant and wanted you to know, guess what? I’d tell you.

Now, I can’t speak for women who actually have been pregnant and have faced these situations, but they always strike me as very uncomfortable. I feel that asking if someone is expecting (whether it is due to abstention from alcohol or not) puts women who ARE pregnant in an unfair situation: either they tell the person they are (even if they had no intentions of doing that), or they can lie and say no. Again, if someone wants me to know they are pregnant, I really, strongly believe that it’s up to them to tell me. Sure, I’ve asked friends about timelines, in terms of a ‘hey, are you guys still thinking about going the kid route?’ more from a wanting to know what’s up in general frame, and it’s possible I’ve even forgotten myself and veered into the territory about which I’m currently complaining. Especially with really close friends – I know I’ve been tempted to want to ask how things are going when they’ve faced reproductive challenges. I want them to know I care! But over the years I’ve learned that there are ways to express support for those friends without repeatedly asking “are you pregnant now? How about now? How about … now? I see you didn’t have any beer tonight – are you finally expecting?!” I get the curiosity when someone knows that people want children, but I think it’s a really good thing to remember that people will tell me when they feel it is appropriate, and my timeline of wanting to know really doesn’t factor into it.

Are these superficial things to complain about? Possibly. But I do think they demonstrate a couple of broader problems. I think the fact that people need to find a reason for why someone chooses not to drink shows that we don’t really have a healthy relationship with alcohol in our society. It’s almost as if some people who do choose it feel insecure about that decision, and want to be reassured that it’s acceptable to have that glass of wine. I just wish they’d keep their issues to themselves, or at the very least, consider asking WHY they care about what I choose to drink.

I think it’s fairly obvious that the idea that an individual woman’s reproductive choices are fair game for discussion by anyone is problematic, and this is just but one teeny tiny (and possibly not that common?) example of the entitlement to know about those choices. It’s just one manifestation of how women of a certain age are seen almost as public property, even by those with the best and sweetest of intentions. Again, I wish more people would just take that second to think “hey, if she were pregnant, she’d probably tell me when she wanted to” and leave it at that.

Tuesday

15

April 2014

0

COMMENTS

Sister Citizen by Melissa Harris-Perry

Written by , Posted in Feminism, Politics, Reviews

Four Stars

sistercitizen

Melissa Harris-Perry hosts a show on MSNBC on the weekends. She’s known for having actual people on the show to discuss news stories that impact them – she doesn’t invite six old white men on to discuss whether birth control should be covered under the Affordable Care Act. If she’s talking about an issue, she seeks to invite people on who KNOW about the topic, and who, if possible, are affected by the topic.

So it makes sense that she would want to write a book about how Black women are (mis)recognized in the United States, using focus groups, real-world examples, and references in literature and popular culture. Sister Citizen is a deep look into how Black women have faced the intersection of race and gender living in the United States. Using the concept of trying to stand up straight in a ‘crooked room,’ she talks through many of the different ways Black women are pigeon-holed into stereotypes, negative images, or ideas that support the White concept of what Black women should be. US society perpetuates negative and destructive images of Black woman, and Dr. Harris-Perry’s book delves into the origins and how Black women deal with this.

As expected by a professor she makes well-researched, strong arguments about the ways in which these stereotypes impact how Black women are viewed by others and how they view themselves. It’s challenging to write more about this because, well, she’s already written it well, and I don’t think there’s much that I could presume to add. All I can really do is recommend it highly.

Saturday

15

February 2014

0

COMMENTS

Why Have Kids?

Written by , Posted in Childfree, Feminism, Reviews

Five Stars

download

I reviewed another of Jessica Valenti’s books (“The Purity Myth”) for last year’s Cannonball Read, and she actually acknowledged my review on Twitter. That was a very happy day. I knew about this book but hadn’t read it; I discovered it on Audible on Friday ended up listening to it pretty much straight through.

Ms. Valenti is a feminist author and mother of her young daughter Layla. Layla was born SUPER early, spending her first weeks in the NICU. Ms. Valenti spends time talking about her feelings of helplessness when her daughter was in the hospital, and definitely shares many anecdotes, but her parenting experience isn’t the main focus of this book. Nor is the book an attempt to convince the reader they should or should not have kids. The book instead is focused on all the ways society has made it challenging to parent (and, specifically, to mother) children, while society also pushes the idea that of course all women should both want to be mothers.

I am not a mother. I am childfree by choice, choosing instead to live my life with my husband and whatever animals we have (currently two awesome cats). I covered this issue in my review of “I Can Barely Take Care of Myself” (good book!), so I won’t spend my review focused on that topic, although Ms. Valenti covers it adeptly. Instead I’m going to focus more on the political issues she raises. From breastfeeding (or not) to working outside the home (or not) to women being treated merely as vessels for children, Ms. Valenti provides strong, interesting and often disturbing facts that reiterate how generally shitty it can be to be a mother. The lack of acknowledgement of how hard it is, the hardline critics who believe there is only one right way to parent (I found her section on attachment parenting to be especially interesting), and the fact that women are sometimes hardest on each other all comes through in pretty vivid fashion.

She shares a story about giving her daughter a bottle during their first outing to a café (pretty big deal, considering she spend the first couple of months of life in the NICU), when a stranger literally said to her “Breast is best – if you’re having trouble I’d be happy to help you out.” The FUCK? Who thinks that is even a little okay? Her point being that what’s best for you might not be best for the mother over there, and that politically we need to fight for the ability to do what works best for our families. Mandated paid maternity and paternity leave, medical coverage of lactation counselling AND breast pumps, etc. What I like the most is that even when she’s presenting the different positions and possibilities (and sometimes expressing a strong preference for one option over another), she’s making strong arguments for the right to make these decisions ourselves, as families.

That’s not to say that she believes that “I choose my choice!” is always going to be the best. She talks about the anti-vaccine movement, and also about studies suggesting that it’s better for the whole family if the mother works outside the home (part time or full time). But her main focus is always on women not being so hard on ourselves, and on society giving mothers the benefit of the doubt, especially each other. Motherhood shouldn’t be a competition, and lately it seems to have evolved into that.

Ms. Valenti also acknowledges that certain mother stereotypes definitely play to the benefit of white, upper-middle-class women. For example, society (and conservatives especially) say women should stay home with the children, but if a single mom wants to provide that type of home for her children? She becomes a “welfare queen.” I would have liked more on the different mother experiences of women of color, though, and I think through the years (this book came out in 2012), she has recognized that she needs to work more on presenting those perspectives.

Finally, one of the more disturbing part of the book came somewhere in the middle, where she talks about how women are treated as worthless if they aren’t currently or planning to become mothers. One example is the now-common suggestion that women always act as if they are pre-pregnant (think about all the medication commercial voice-overs that say you shouldn’t use something if you are pregnant “or may become pregnant”). She shares the story of one woman who had zero plans to ever have children. She needed some medication, but her doctor gave her the less-effective version because it can cause side-effects in pregnancy. Umm, what? Nope. Treat ME as the human, not as a possible vessel for some hypothetical fetus. Please. It takes an even darker turn when you learn about woman arrested MID CHILDBIRTH because she was attempting a VBAC (vaginal birth after c-section). They literally cuffed her, dragged her to the hospital, and held a trial to force her into a c-section. Her fetus was appointed an attorney; she was not. Yeah, that happened. Like I said: dark.

Motherhood looks to me like a ton of hard work. I see my friends with kids and they are doing amazing things. And so far none of them seem to have just disappeared into their kids, replacing their own identities with ‘mother’ across the board. I have so much respect for what they do every day, and I wish that society could catch up and make it easier for all of them.

Sunday

10

November 2013

0

COMMENTS

Manifesta

Written by , Posted in Feminism, Reviews

Two Stars

manifesta-201x300

As I close in on the full Cannonball, I’m trying to wrap up a lot of books that I’ve put down over the course of the year. There’s a science book, one of the Song of Ice and Fire series, another etiquette book, and one on goddesses (seriously). And then there’s this one, which I started way back in January. Why the ten month break between starting and finishing it? Well … I just did not like it.

Manifesta is on a lot of ‘must read’ feminism book lists, but I found it to be mediocre. The writing isn’t bad – it’s not like Cinderella’s Lost Diary or whatever that unfortunate book was that Cannonballers were offered for free earlier this year. My problem is that it’s not actually what it claims to be – a feminism manifesto. It’s more like a thrown-together anthology of white feminism, with some ‘picture this’ writing thrown in. The chapters feel disjointed, and I’m not entirely clear what the authors sought to do with this book. Were they trying to say what the ‘third wave’ feminists are contributing to feminism as a whole? Were they trying to explore what previous feminists did (and how that was and was not successful)? Trying to outline what we should be doing going forward? I think a book could be successful in doing all three, but that’s not this book.

In addition to the book feeling disjointed and unfocused, there were so many areas where they missed opportunities to really explore feminism – warts and all. There was even one point where I wanted to just throw the book out the window, but was nearly 200 pages in so I just stuck it out. That moment was during a discussion of toys for young girls, and the issues with Barbie, and the attempts to push Mattel to sell Barbies that look more like all girls – so not just blond, white Barbies. The authors passed that off as “PC,” and they meant that as an insult. Any book that uses the concept of “Politically Correct” as though it is derogatory just isn’t a good book in my opinion. Saying something is ‘politically correct’ means that it’s showing some empathy to people, and recognizing that straight, white, cis people aren’t all who matter.

That very specific issue is one example of the larger problem with this book – it’s so, very, very white. Yes, the authors mention contributions from women of color (usually in passing), but they don’t acknowledge any of the larger issues with mainstream white feminism. They buy into the “women fought to join the workforce and stay there after the war” story, for example, but don’t acknowledge that many women of color had already been working for decades. They don’t recognize the complexity of race, gender and sexuality – it’s a lot of Gloria Steinem and one reference to bell hooks.

Going forward, I’ll be avoiding these generic overviews of feminism, whether targeting and young women or not. I’m more interested in learning about the full history of feminism, and womanism, and reading books that look at the bigger issues of intersectionality that mainstream feminism keeps ignoring.

Sunday

15

September 2013

0

COMMENTS

What’s in a name, really?

Written by , Posted in Feminism

Many articles have been written about the decision to change last names after marriage – here’s another one!

I am a feminist. That’s not a surprise to anyone who knows me; I subscribe to the belief that those who identify as men and those who identify as women (along with those who don’t identify as either) of all races deserve equal treatment. I believe in things like equal pay, paid maternity and paid paternity leave, and flexible work schedules. I believe that marriages should be equal partnerships; I am physically sickened by the idea that the man in a heterosexual marriage is the default head of the household.

For the most part, other than when I say that I am choosing not to have children, people don’t really feel the need to weigh in on my personal life choices. However, when it came to the Mister’s and my decision about what to do about our last names once we got married, our personal business became open for debate among some of our relatives. It’s interesting, what some people think they are entitled to weigh in on.

When it came time to decide what to do about our last names when we got married, the Mister and I had a few discussions. If you do a search for ‘feminism’ and ‘change last name’, you’ll likely find some interesting takes on the concept. The vast majority of Americans still follow the patriarchal tradition of a woman taking the husband’s family name. Many awesome women still do that – my sister-in-law, many of my closest female friends, and my mother all made that decision. I DEFINITELY find nothing wrong or anti-feminist about deciding to take the husband’s last name; however, I do personally think that the decision should come not because it’s just what people do, but from a discussion about what’s best for the new family.

As far as we saw it, we had these options (in order of what society assumes is appropriate):

  1. He keeps his last name, I take his last name
  2. He keeps his last name, I hyphenate my last name by adding his last name to mine
  3. We both keep our birth names [I refuse to use the term ‘maiden’ name anymore because a) it doesn’t apply to men and b) let’s be honest – how many of us were still ‘maidens’ when we got married]
  4. We both hyphenate his name before my name / We both hyphenate my name before his name
  5. We both take my last name
  6. We both take a new name, possibly one from one side’s family (say, a grandmother’s birth name)
  7. We both take a new name made up of letters from our birth names.

Clearly option one would have been the easiest route. It’s so engrained in our collective thinking that one of our relatives even asked whether I was allowed to keep my name once we got married. However, as we are not having children, we didn’t see any need to default to this option. If we were the last of the Mister’s Last Names AND were going to have children? Sure. Or if perhaps I really hated my birth name? I could see how this would be an easy option. But none of those applied. In fact, since we aren’t having children, choosing his last name felt like I would be ditching my family. I’m not saying that’s what I’d be doing, or that others who don’t plan to have kids but take the man’s last name are doing that; I’m saying that’s how I felt.

Option two would have been a little more ‘progressive,’ but we wouldn’t share a last name, and one thing we were firm on was if one of us were going to change our last name, then it was going to result in us both having the SAME last name.

Option three was going to be the default if we couldn’t agree on anything. In the end though, we did like the idea of sharing a last name. So many people (wrongly) think that you aren’t “really” a family until you have kids. That’s quite offensive to those who cannot have children as well as those who choose not to reproduce. However, in that light, one way to publically solidify that we are, indeed, a family, is to share a last name.

Option four was not great either – while neither of us have especially long last names, both of us hyphenating would still have been a mouthful and created logistical problems from a government ID perspective. Plus, whose name would come first? Would people just drop the second name and end up defaulting to calling us by the last name that came first?

Option five seemed like just another version of option one, although we know that’s not the case. Men who choose their wife’s family name are pretty rare; in some states they have to pay a significant amount of money to make the change because it’s not ‘traditional.’ Laws like that are so sexist; thankfully our state does not have such laws. For us, this option also didn’t make sense; there was no need for him to jump ship from his family name to take mine.

We never seriously considered option six, although another couple at the courthouse the day we changed our names was doing just that. It seemed like a very cool thing.

While on our honeymoon we agreed that if we were going to change our last name, then we would go with option seven: a shared last name that was a mix of his last name and my last name. Soon after our return, we confirmed the decision. From our perspective, this was the best of all worlds AND met all of our criteria:

–          We would share the same last name

–          Neither of us would have to feel like we were leaving our family or picking our spouse’s family over our own

–          We would be able to fit our new last name on a driver’s license

We wrote down all the letters of our last names and started mixing them up. There were a few options that were funny, but only one really stood out, and it’s the one we chose. It let me keep my initials (which I really like – hence the blog title), and also sounds vaguely Irish, which is a heritage we both share. Score!

We took the steps to legally change our names and then told our parents mostly for logistics reasons. We believe that this does not impact them in any practical way, and while I can see having an emotional reaction to change – much like the reaction to realizing that their children are married –how they chose to communicate their feelings has spoken volumes to me about our relationships.

I’m proud of our decision. I’m sad, however, that doing something as basic as choosing the best route for us as a couple is seen by some as hurtful. Hopefully more and more people will feel comfortable making similar decisions if they fit their new families, until we can get to a point where the default is not ‘well obviously she’ll take his last name,’ but instead ‘are either or both of you planning to change your last name’? That would be awesome.