July 8, 2013

Who do you think you are?

After a long day of boozing, a meeting was held in the conservatory at Casa Uborka, at which the Gammidgys and the DotNus discussed a number of important matters including, but not limited to, the following.

1. Marriage.

We tried and failed to answer these questions:

  • What is it for?
  • What does it do?
  • Is it relevant in these times?
  • Is there a suitable alternative that gives similar legal protection to all parties, and/or makes a public statement about commitment?

We had no wish to denigrate marriage or those who have chosen it, but to figure out what would work for us. Should it be a legal document drawn up by a solicitor setting out what happens in the event of splitting up? A pre-nup without the nup, as it were. Should it be a private moment between two people, or a massive party with all the traditional trimmings? Can it somehow be both of these things? Is a civil partnership a viable alternative, or is that a contract set out by the government, which the government could change at any time without consulting us? We neglected to consider handfasting.

And when we woke up in the morning, Anna and Bobbie had announced their engagement, on which we congratulate them, because we’re not mean, and because people declaring love and good intentions towards one another is undoubtedly a happy thing. We just can’t figure out if or how or why to formalise it ourselves.

2. Official Marital Status

We then went on to notice that both Miss Gammidgy and I had adopted our male team-member’s internet alias, with irony of course. And then we wondered heavily about her use of Miss and mine of Mrs. And then her male team-member asserted that feminists only used Ms because they weren’t man enough to claim Mr for their very own. This was an interesting point. And then Pete tried to rub ointment on Mike’s head, and shortly after (it was 2am) they left.

3. Other matters of interest

But we had been drinking since noon, and can’t remember any of them.

Karen

5 thoughts on “Who do you think you are?

  1. I’m told that the use of Miss was more deliberate than I remembered, I apparently explained it to Mr G at the time. I think mainly to avoid it looking like I was claiming marriage, which would seem dishonest than anything more fundamental. Although interesting that Ms didn’t occur to me at the time. I clearly need to continue to work on my feminism. Although I did pull a very disapproving face when addressed as ‘sweetheart’ at work the other day if that helps….

    The use of adopting his internet identity is far easier to explain – I don’t have one and am broadly devoid of the levels of imagination required to think of that sort of thing

    Miss Gammidgy on July 8, 2013
  2. It was interesting, and as I’m sure @MrPixeldiva would confirm, it’s more a question of taking on the team name than of bowing to the patriarchy. Just a different way of looking at things.

  3. I always assumed I’d take my husband’s name on marriage and I did, but it might have been different. When we met, Mr PWF (which he is never called, but anyway) had just changed his name to his mother’s maiden name (for many long standing family drama reasons. The short version being he wanted to honour his mother by having her name rather that of than the scumbag bio-dad he has no contact with). He says if we’d met a little earlier, he’d have changed his name to mine. I think I’d found that unconventional, but probably nice.
    We might have gone down the double-barrelled route but (sounds like a verb)-(sounds like an adverb) or vice versa would have sounded like a cooking instruction.

  4. I guess the key thing is that, whatever title you choose (Mrs, Ms, Miss, Oi Mush) doesn’t change who you are.

    Hels is quite assertive with her married name. If any of her family refer to her as a [maiden name] she says “but I’m not that any more, I’m a [married name]”. By which, I think she means that her first loyalty is to our little team of three+cats. The fact that she took my surname is probably driven by nothing more than tradition, but I can’t say we thought hard about that issue beforehand.

    Looking at it from the other side (i.e. the bloke’s), I actually quite like the fact that we have united branding. But, if Hels had decided to marry me and keep her own name, would it have changed our relationship? Don’t think so. And would not being married have changed our relationship? Probably not, although I like the legal back up when it comes to matters of parenting and property that marriage gives which a lawyer-drafted contract may not – the thought that if I have an unexpected meeting with a cement truck, the legal default position will kick in.

  5. My comment about feminists not being bold enough to claim the title ‘Mr’ was more than a little tongue-in-cheek, but I am puzzled by titles and what they are really for nowadays.
    I’m not qualified to call myself Dr or Prof or Lt Col., as I’ve not done the necessaries to earn those. Yet somehow I’m entitled (!) to call myself Mr, purely because I was clever enough to be born with a penis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.