Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'self-confessed feminist'(29 Posts)
Joan Smith criticises RW press comments on Miriam Gonzalez Durantez here
I like this: "Take Mrs Clegg, who for reasons best known to herself principally, I suspect, the fact that it's her name insists on being known as Miriam Gonzalez Durantez."
Oh, bite me! This Dr Seuss is married to a Mr Hortonhearsahoo, has been for fourteen years, has 2 Hortonhearsahoo DC and IS A PERSON IN HER OWN RIGHT!!!!!!!!!
This is a fab article that made me grin (and relieved some of the frustration of reading all that crud yesterday!). Thanks for the link !
Excellent. That article yesterday was a real throwback. Don't we all know that men should be able to chuck their sperm hither and yon, and if children result then it's not their job to look after them? Honestly - in line, ladies!
Great article! The comments below are to be expected though. Some of them not even recognising theirony in the article!
I didn't see the original article, but I can imagine, and the article linked here was great. Attack the stupid bastards with sarcasm.
Apart from the sense in MDG keeping her own, Spanish and professional name, isn't Miriam Gonzalez Durantez a fantastic name in its own right? Far better than Clegg.
I haven't read the RW articles mentioned (the Indy happens to be my paper incidentally), but I'm not sure the criticism of Clegg is that he is not taking the opportunity (afforded by his gender) of chucking his sperm hither and yon... I suspect that the RW press just love an opportunity to give Clegg a kicking and the deeper ethical issues are ignored (isn't that what the tabloids routinely do, after all?). The actual accusation here is that if Clegg works hard to ensure he spends time with his children he is somehow shirking responsibility at work. Therefore, he is either lazy or, perhaps, 'henpecked'. I would say that this attitude definitely still exists in organisations and is being reflected in these quotes.
The 'self confessed' bit gets me..
It always sounds like an admission of guilt.
Sorry yeah I just meant that one of the points seems to be that looking after children is a waste of men's worthwhile time. They should be allowed to father them, presumably, but not be expected to do anything else after the moment they roll over and start snoring.
I honestly don't understand this "he's supposed to be running the country" stuff. Er, well partly but he has help too. It's not just him. Small matter of thousands of civil servants, staff etc etc etc. Bonkers.
That was one of the things I found bizarre about the original article. Why shouldn't she call herself by her own name??? Far more odd to refer to her as Miriam Clegg.
The reference to Señora Gonzalez Durantez's name in the article has made me very angry indeed. It shows a complete lack of ignorance towards Señora Gonzalez Durantez's cultural background.
Had the 'delightful' Joan Smith bothered to do any research, she would know that a Hispanic woman does not take her husband's surname, so the reason for Señora Gonzalez Durantez's goes by this name is very clear. The reason is certainly not only known to Señora Gonzalez Durantez's.
The simple fact she has called Señora Gonzalez Durantez's "Mrs Clegg" in the article is an insult. The correct way to address her is Señora/Mrs Gonzalez Durantez. Prior to her marriage, she would have been Señorita (Miss) Gonzalez Durantez.
(The only area where Hispanic naming custom fails, is that like here in the UK, men are called Señor regardless of their marital status. A woman changes from Señorita to Señora upon marriage (but retains her own surname).
I'm going to have to comment, it makes me very angry, it just shows complete ignorance.
NB: On a separate note, I must say, I was very disappointed to learn that Señora Gonzalez Durantez allowed for her children to have Clegg as their surname, rather than implementing Hispanic naming custom. Even if she'd have given them a double surnames, as per Hispanic custom, with Clegg first and Gonzalez second that would have been better. Antonio, Alberto and Miguel Clegg Gonzalez would have sounded much better then just Antonio, Alberto and Miguel Clegg.
Surely it can't be true that some people are thinking Joan Smith wrote this article straight up? I thought Indie readers were credited with some intelligence. Wrong again <sighs>
Can someone explain Hispanic surnames to me? Where do the two names come from?
Miriam is Fab!
Umm Purple: Joan Smith is criticising the rightwing press for their treatment of Ms. Gonzalez D. I can't remember who wrote the original piece that criticised Clegg for doing the school run and being hen-pecked by his "self-confessed" feminist wife.
Also the Spanish name thing can also be very patriarchal above and beyond the Señora/rita stuff. I am married to a Mexican, who for the sake of argument, I'll call Perez. I didn't change my name on marrying and our children are thus surnamed Perez Hatita (father's surname followed by mother's surname)
However, on the phone and socially I have been referred to innumerous times as Señora Perez. In the press, in which I don't feature, often women will be refered with "de" plus DH's surname so Ms. GD would end up being
Señora Miriam Gonzalez Durantez de Clegg.
Anyway kudos to Joan Smith. I think the story about Clegg and the school run is perhaps the thing that makes me think kindly of him even when annoyed with him.
It made you angry? Really? I think I'd allow people, even journalists, a little bit of cultural ignorance. Who knows everything? You Guava? Perhaps I should quiz you on my culture and see how you get on. For example, have you ever used the word bulldozer? I'd bet you had no idea of the historical origins of the word, but I wouldn't blame you for it nor do I seek for it to be put on a blacklist. 'Black' list; there we are again. Additionally, I do wonder whether double-barrelling now mighy not lead to future problems; does the next generation quadruple-barrel?
I have a problem with people who get 'angry' about the use of language as it makes everything a minefield. The truth is that language can be clumsy, rooted in history and what one person says is not what another person understands by it. Do we really think that we can create a language and cultural references that doesn't have some implicit disadvantage, compromise or historial connotation for someone? This dogmatism leads to the sort of nonsense that has (white liberal) people trying to get rid of baa baa black sheep etc.
Perhaps Ms Smith should have done a bit more research, but I do not blame her for failing to do so. Life's hard work and, frankly, far easier if we are given some leeway when we make errors, say the wrong thing or try a joke that isn't funny. Let her without sin cast the first stone....
A child gets a name from each parent, always the first of the parents' two surnames, so the children of a couple will have a different double surname to their parents.
Juan Pomarés Diaz marries Ana Rios Garrido. As per Hispanic naming custom, the parents retain their own surnames. They have a son and name him José. José's surname will be Pomarés Rios OR Rios Pomarés, the first of each of his parent's surnames. Usually the paternal name goes first, so José would most likely be José Pomarés Rios, and for the purposes of this that's what he'll be.
As far as subsequent children go, I know people here in the UK who think that Hispanics can 'flip' the order of the surnames for each gender, say paternal name first for boys and maternal names first for girls. This is incorrect. The surname order must be the same for each child. This is law.
So when Juan and Ana have their second child, a girl named Ester, she will be Ester Pomarés Rios.
When addressing an Hispanic, you should use both surnames, or just the first surname. It is incorrect to only use the second surname. For example, José should be addressed as Señor Pomarés Rios OR Señor Pomarés, but never as Señor Rios.
NB: Some Hispanics, myself included, who also have a double first name. So José might be called José Santiago Pomarés Garrido. Santiago is part of his first name, not a middle name, as middle names don't exist in Hispanic culture.
Mum's name: Carla Romero Mendez; father's name: Juan Perez Malo
Children's names: name plus father's first surname and mother's first surname or in our example: Pedro Perez Romero, Ana Perez Romero etc
This means that the male surname is always preserved because should Ana Perez Romero marry Manuel Chapas Fernandez and have a daughter called Laura she would be: Laura Chapas Perez.
I hope this is clear.....
I see Purple's is a better explanation.
And Purple: do you know if the "de" thing is done in Spain or is it just Mexico??
^ Link to original article for anyone thinking that Joan Smith was being serious.
I, like the Spanish tradition better than ours but it's still about male heads of family, nice if women carried mothers names ....so we create a lineage for women as well as men.
I like Iceland's naming system , but guess it only works for a small population.
HoneyDuke, you do? Why? Icelandic family names are not even family names, but father's names (nowadays very occasionally mother's). If John Smith and Mary Jones in iceland have a kid called Jack or Jane, the child will be called Jack Johnsson or Jane Johnsdottir - connection to Mary the mother is nowhere to be seen.
As for the article, really the cheek, to be known by your own name and not be called Mrs Clegg, who you, incidentally, are not..
I understood that boys were fathersson and girls motherdottir. I guess this isn't the case and don't like the Icelandic system any more.
A woman changes from Señorita to Señora upon marriage
According to my Spanish friend (from Barcelona if it makes a difference) you graduate to Señora when you become an adult, married or no.
The name thing is easy - I don't need to know the cultural naming system in Mongolia to know that if someone comes up and says "I am Mrs Jones" you call her Mrs Jones, and if she says "I am Ms Henry" you call her Ms Henry, and if she calls herself "I am Dr Henry-Jones" you call her Dr Henry-Jones. Easy.
I liked this comment on work/life balance from here
"I always get very surprised when Im asked this question because, you know, I have three children, I have a busy career and I have a very busy husband. Yet my husband has three children, he has a much busier career than I have, and he has a busy wife. Nobody would ask him how he balances everything. For some reason there is a kind of assumption in your question that it is my role to balance it.
Join the discussion
Please login first.