The surname fuss: A married woman's predicament! - Page 5

Originally posted by: -Xaffron-

no they do not check if both husband wife have same surname. its tradition only, not legal requirement. thats why there are seprate"name" and "surname" sections in application forms. If they have doubt, they will ask for marriage certificate. My sister didnot change her last name. she never has problem applying for visa with her hubby.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

I like your post for the entire length of it but for the bold part. A man is considered "manly" if he hits his wife or so much raises A FINGER ON HER? I always thought it was the other way round. If a man hits a woman-- "Yeh mard mard hi nahi hai. Auroto par haath uthane wala mard nahi hota."
If a woman slaps a man-- "Ha! Atta girl!" or, "Hehehehe...maar kha gaya bechara". Nobody screams different standards there I see. 😛

Originally posted by: Rehanism

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2">That dialogue holds true only in Hindi films and FB comments..But reality is entirely different..In our society there are no such concepts like individualism, individual rights, freedom or mutual respect. Instead our societies are organized around concepts like Honour and Shame. And that is even truer for the middle class "Bhodrolok" families..</font>

@Krystal

In many rural and traditional parts of the world, there is a culture of machismo. A man is supposed to be strong and in control. It is his manly duty to put women "in their place" either through physical or emotional coercion. If a woman is independent, free spirited and not subdued by a man, then that man loses his machismo.

The notion that it is un-manly to raise hand on a woman came about during the feminist era as a way to counter the culture of machismo. Ethical arguments against violence, coercion worked only in certain societies. In society where a man has to be macho, a man would rather be violent than un-manly. That is why the notion was spread that it is unmanly to raise a hand on a woman. Even then the notion is still that a woman is weaker than a man. He has physical power over her. And only he can protect and care for her. Encouraging women to stand up for themselves and even lash out with slaps or other physical assertion also was a means to counter male dominance. This was an issue where flight could not solve problems, fight was necessary. Especially for bruised or battered women.

Ideally, neither gender ought to stronger or weaker. Society should not run on either machismo or feminism, but a balance between both genders. Violence against anyone is wrong. Depending on the circumstance it is Ok for men and women to use physical force against men or women. Unfortunately, our society is far from being ideal. The best we can do is avoid stringent notions and try to evaluate each situation on its merit.

I'm really confused at what point you are trying to make Krystal. 😕

Rehan's post pointed out problems patriarchal stereotypes. The gist was that we cannot pretend to believe in equality, as long as stereotyped roles exist there will be no equality of any form.

You actually agreed to most of his post, but objected to part where he said: men who beat women are considered manly. You claimed the opposite was true.

Which is why I responded with patriarchal stereotypes and how society has perceived them over time.

Now you are saying you actually disagree with his post and equality is not possible. If this was your point, why did you agree with Rehan? Why didn't you bring it up earlier?

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I'm really confused at what point you are trying to make Krystal. 😕

</p>

Rehan's post pointed out problems patriarchal stereotypes. The
gist was that we cannot pretend to believe in equality, as long as stereotyped
roles exist there will be no equality of any form.

You actually agreed to most of his post, but objected to
part where he said: men who beat women are considered manly. You claimed the
opposite was true.

Which is why I responded
with patriarchal stereotypes and how society has perceived them over time.

<p>Now you are saying you actually disagree with his post and equality
is not possible. If this was your point, why did you agree with Rehan? Why didn't
you bring it up earlier?