Why are so many women hellbent on acting against their own interest?

[thedankness]

From TWAW, pro "sex-work", "kinky sex" and porn, plastic surgery, accepting low standards in relationships with men, being anti-abortion to more trivial things such as wearing heels, and yes, shaving, and so much more, so many women will defend these things to the hilt. They refuse/are unable to see how these things are bad for themselves and/or women generally, even after presented with arguments. Obviously some people will disagree with points made in an argument, but I just don't see men subjugating themselves en masse like I do women.

I feel sad. Why can't we as women just love ourselves and look out for ourselves? I feel like we are groomed into self-hate. Is the notion of female self-acceptance and worth truly so radical that a significant number can't even fathom it as a possibility for themselves?

Why is it so common for women to act against their interest? And can or should we do anything about it?

This is a bit poorly-worded, have thoughts but am interested to hear others' opinions.

@TempestTost I think this is less to do with gender issues and more to do with general capitalistic "bleed you dry" approach

However, I have seen feminists saying that taking long leave from work is anti-feminist because you're forsaking your career for childcare...and then that supporting longer paternity leave is wrong because men allegedly don't use it for the right purpose

in fact anything to do with parenthood is a can of worm and you can never do it right - not as a parent and not as a woman

@TrashedSofa isnt just talking what creates social pressure? are those not the snide remarks and comments that were discussed earlier?

anything can be talked about, as we're doing right now, but this is very much the social policing that causes people to do or not do certain things - or to get defensive and reject the entire movement leading to alternative ideologies ("tradwives" movement is a good example of what happens when you push too hard)

@TrashedSofa isnt just talking what creates social pressure? are those not the snide remarks and comments that were discussed earlier?

anything can be talked about, as we're doing right now, but this is very much the social policing that causes people to do or not do certain things - or to get defensive and reject the entire movement leading to alternative ideologies ("tradwives" movement is a good example of what happens when you push too hard)

Social pressure is created by lots of things. Other people's actions, for example the decision of other women to engage in patriarchal naming traditions. Talking can create social pressure too, of course, but in this particular situation obviously it's been the less effective of the two. Additionally, telling women to STFU when we raise this issue is social pressure, no? And indeed policing.

Defensiveness is an issue, yes. The problem you have there is that the risk of pissing someone off can be applied to absolutely anything that anyone might want to say about women's rights. Some of those pissed off people will be female.

Additionally, if you start to label women talking about our experiences of sexism due to surname choices as policing others, you also risk that group feeling alienated and rejecting the movement too. The points you are making here work both ways.

@TrashedSofa absolutely, but it is possible to acknowledge that something originated from patriarchal tradition but nowadays is simply an option women can chose

Saying that a decision an adult makes is harmful to them (and everyone else) is a bit too simplistic.

it ignores choices, self-awareness, multitude of personal reasons and other societal pressures not strictly related to gender, as well as simple personal preferences. In few places here it was demonstrated that man doing something is more likely to be seen simply as choice, while for women it has to be a result of societal pressure that she may be blindly following.

Trivial example: cooking. Women traditionally had a role of homemakers so a woman who cooks for the entire family is seen as following traditional values, could she possibly just like cooking just like her male neighbour who cooks for his entire family and takes great pride in it?

Think there's been some confusion here. I haven't suggested that women engaging in patriarchal naming traditions are harming themselves. Indeed, I can see that some may derive benefits from it, and those women are likely to be better placed to articulate the benefits than I am. Instead, I'm talking about the impact those choices have on other women who make different choices.

@TrashedSofa sorry, I was referring to the theme from the main post of women doing things that harm themselves and others

and I am fully aware of being slightly idealistic, but if we were supporting a wide range of choices then we would not be negatively impacted as a group by those choices

No worries, just wanted to make sure you were clear on what I thought.

I'm not sure how your second point would work in relation to misogyny experienced by women who keep and pass on our own names in cultures where that's not the norm, and not use titles denoting marital status. Can you elaborate?

@TrashedSofa I believe that discussing these choices as available and normal rather than "better / worse" actually normalises these different options

and i think women should really pick their battles - having to correct someone "its Ms, not Miss" is really not that big of a deal - if enough people will do it enough times everyone will just get used to it

If enough people did it everyone would get used to it is the fundamental point here. Enough people don't. That's why the choices other women make have a detrimental impact on those of us who don't use the more patriarchal models.

Also, those of us who actually experience this behaviour are the ones best placed to decide how big of a deal it is. In the same way that women who've taken their husband's names and/or use Mrs are best placed to say whether it was in their interests or not.

Ultimately, it's still a form of sexism and one that men don't have to worry about it. There isn't a way for anyone to say we should pick our battles, which generally boils down to telling us you don't want us to say it, that doesn't in itself amount to both policing and social pressure.

and here is where I think there is definitely enough people keeping their name, let alone using title Ms for it to work. Someone mentioned that 90% of women in UK changes their surname after getting married - so in theory every 10th married woman keeps her previous name

this is where my bias comes into place, but I have a gendered, foreign name...the amount of confusion it creates and the fact that I had people try and tell me how to spell my own name makes the Ms/Miss issue so trivial in comparison (especially since I never actually had a person question my use of Ms) that I can't help but think that it is a bit of a non-issue.

I suspect that the surnames thing will change over time. I certainly think there was more societal pressure/expectation that a woman would change her name on marriage when I got married in the 80s, than there is now.

I do think that, even if there had been no pressure to change my name when I got married, I would still have changed it, for the reasons I explained earlier. I also chose to be Mrs, and would not be happy if that stopped being an option on forms etc, and I had to be Ms - because I have been Mrs for so long, and I am not at all good with change. But if, overnight, all titles were removed from forms etc, and we were simply known by our names, that would not worry me at all.

I like evidence based claims, when possible. There seem to be a huge assumption made by feminists, at least in English speaking societies, that women taking the man's name is bad for women (whether individualistically or as a whole) and it would be better if it was different.

Is there any actual evidence based that where women do not typically take the man's name, "the patriarchy" has less power?

I'm going to suggest that there isn't. There are a lot of societies with a lot of naming traditions, and overall they don't especially correlate to the position of women in the society. Nor is there evidence that changing a tradition of this type has any effect on the position of women, not just individualistically, but as a whole.

That being the case, while people are welcome to think the hypothesis that this is important for women, I think it shows a certain amount or arrogance to suggest that women who don't do it are being anti-feminist, or settling, or anything else. Not subscribing to a hypothesis with, at best, a limited evidence base, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

*@TempestTostI think this is less to do with gender issues and more to do with general capitalistic "bleed you dry" approach

However, I have seen feminists saying that taking long leave from work is anti-feminist because you're forsaking your career for childcare...and then that supporting longer paternity leave is wrong because men allegedly don't use it for the right purpose

in fact anything to do with parenthood is a can of worm and you can never do it right - not as a parent and not as a woman*

Yes, of course it intersects with larger questions about the structure of the economy. And if that's not a feminist issue, (it's not,) views can differ among women without any of them being anti-feminist. They just reflect different views about human economic life.

There has always been a strain of feminism that is largely anti-children. They are accepted as a kind of necessity, but anything that ties women to their children more than men is to be rejected, so breastfeeding for example. Some of these feminists get into transhumanist territory with ideas around outsourcing gestation to.

It's never caught on to a huge degree because not enough people want to live like that, but it's had some influence in discourse on women in work.

I guess it's not surprise ideas about parenting are fraught, it's one of the most important, long term, social functions. And our society is unusual in having had not only huge changes to how it is done in a short time, but also a very wide spectrum within society. Even compared to when I was a growing up. So lots of scope for friction.

No evidence that women erasing their own names is harmful. I guess this is true. And is there any evidence that the converse is true? Does taking a man's name make a woman happier? Or are you just assuming that convention must be the de facto better option?

FWIW it's a rather specific and localised convention, too. Scots women didn't used to take their husband's surname, although many first names were 'feminised' male names (Williamina, etc).

On the subject of titles, I always think that the resurrection of ‘Ms’ was a definite tactical error. In languages where there’s just a word for Mrs such as Frau and a rather diminutive word for Miss such as Fraulein, single women tend to become Frau and it’s a bit of a non-issue.

"Erasing" is loaded language here. A woman doesn't cease to be who she is because she takes a spouse's name any more than a man does. The question of the social effects of one convention or another is completely unestablished.

Personally I suspect it makes little or no difference in itself what the social convention is in a society with regards to names, although potentially other social forms related to that (legal status, say,) could. Naming conventions are socially neutral IMO. There's no particular reason to oppose people who want to change them, but it won't materially affect women as a whole or individually and it represents a waste of energy as a campaign.

Western liberal progressivism has contained a strong bias towards the idea that changing language in itself will drive deeper social changes and attitudes. In some cases that may be true, especially where it clearly makes it difficult to conceptualize or discuss ideas clearly. But in a lot of cases I don't think it's evidenced, and in fact the evidence suggests that it's not the case - the revolving door of which words are considered acceptable or rude or slurs is a good example - attitudes simply change the meaning of the words rather than the opposite.

Yes, that's rather the point. There are all kinds of different traditions, and the history behind them is quite varied, and they don't seem to be especially related to the status of women in those societies.

Well, maybe it's just me. I can't see the taking on of someone else's name and surrendering - feel free to use a different term if you think that's loaded - giving up, letting go of, removing, etc - one's own name as anything other than a form of erasure. Signifying ownership, obeisance, subjugation, surrender.

Names are not entirely equal to 'words'. Names have enormous power and significance and the changing/accepting of a name similarly has huge cultural meaning.

FWIW women have pretty unarguably been subjugated as second class citizens throughout the UK up until relatively recently (last century) - legally, socially, culturally - and I would say that changing their names from their father's to their husbands was part of that subjugation.

I’ve heard this before but when did it change?

fun fact: some languages have male equivalent of "miss", although its rarely used and used to be mostly applied to rich families, which actually once again points towards the real reason for revealing someone's martial status at all

it was not so much to let people know you "belong" to your spouse, but to let them know if you're free

which is probably also why Miss often became Mrs even if she never married - at certain age she was no longer considered a marriage material (including the fact that she probably didn't want to if she avoided marriage thus far)

the tradition of giving children man's name also started as something that women found useful back in the day, especially unmarried ones. If meant the dad did not question his paternity and it would be easier to chase him legally should he try and avoid responsibility for the child.

@ArabellaScott taking on mans name dates back to times when women did not have (in general) their own wealth, it made sense to have your very name signify that you have rights to his inheritance etc.

Women who had titles that were higher than those of their husbands generally continued to use those titles / their previous names

so historically looking at it, taking on mans name was less about belonging to him and more about his stuff belonging to you should he flip over 😜

Yes, Señorito is definitely an insult @PaintedEgg.

@WhatWouldJeevesDo I didn't know this one and was thinking of slavic languages

@PaintedEgg I’m not sure how much that argument stands up given that married women had no legal identity until quite late in the nineteenth century.
Name changes were surely more about a woman passing from being her father’s property and responsibility to being that of her husband.

@LadyHester as with everything - it wasn't that simple. There are many records of women keeping their husband's trade going and / or inheriting at least something. There were periods of time when being a widow of someone with money was one of the few situations for a woman to have a relative freedom.

and while a wife was not necessarily seen as property, she was definitely a responsibility - the name change was a very easy way to establish association with her husband and his family.

However, most of this reasoning became irrelevant once women gained right to own property in their own name.