"We seldom realize, for example that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society."
Alan Wilson Watts
This is a Father's Day post.
One of the questions that people asked me the most after they found out that I had my first-born son take his mother's surname was, "How did your parents take it?"
That is an important question because I am Chinese and the very core of Chinese culture is the Confucian concept of filial piety. Disobedience to one's parents and ancestry is considered to be one of the most unforgivable sins a Chinese person can commit. Ensuring the continuity of one's family name - the 姓 or surname - is a sacred duty that is entrusted upon all Chinese men. Friends and colleagues asked me about my parents opinion on my son's surname because more than anything, they wanted to know how my family could accept my act of sacrilege.
I have always given vague answers to that question and occasionally, outright evaded it. What I usually say is, "I have discussed it with my parents before Darwin was born. He is my son and that decision was mine to make." That's usually enough to placate most busybodies. It also has the advantage of being absolutely true without actually revealing how my parents reacted to my, how should I phrase it... blood betrayal?
Fact is, that's exactly how it was taken: a betrayal of one's family and blood (never mind the fact that Chinese women are expected to "betray" their "blood" every day). My mother disowned me, said that I did it to hurt her and cut me off from my inheritance. One of my favourite aunts said many harsh things to me over the phone and we have never talked since. My father alternately blamed me, my wife and my wife's family, lashing out indiscriminately like a wounded proud animal, spitting many hate-filled utterances that I would never have imagined could come out of his usually gentle, soft-spoken mouth. He had, in his moment of outrage, called his one and only grandson a bastard.
I don't blame them and I certainly don't blame my father. In many ways, his reaction was understandable. The weight of thousands of years of Chinese tradition compelled him to denounce my action as nothing less than a complete abomination, and it is just as hard for him to put down that cultural burden as it is for a person raised as a Christian to blaspheme in the name of Jesus or a Muslim to eat bacon. From what he said, I gathered that he saw me as a weak, placating man who was either going beyond all reason to please my wife or was somehow bought over by my wife's family via monetary means. In a way, his disappointment in me; his perception of me as an avaricious, unprincipled coward was what cut me the deepest in this entire sorry feud.
That's because everything he accused me of is the opposite of that person who did what I did. I risked being disowned and disinherited for what I believe in. I stood my ground against the monstrous momentum of that thousands of years of Chinese tradition my father and family are yoked to when it crashed headlong into the unyielding, unbreaking backbone of my most cherished principles.
Growing up, I was fed a steady diet of TVB Chinese period dramas that impressed upon me the importance of one's family name which, in many ways, is synonymous with a person's honour. Only males have the exclusive power to pass down the surname and the few rare times the reverse occurred had always been depicted in the context of an impoverished, degenerate man changing his name and marrying into a wealthier, more powerful family which has no sons to pass the family name down. As you can see from my own experience, not much has changed since the Qin dynasty.
This patriarchal practice forms the root of the disproportionate treatment of men and women throughout the annals of Chinese history. Female children, with their inability to continue their family's line and the combined cost of raising them and the cost of dowry when they are married away, are considered to be net losses to a family or "money-losing enterprises", to loosely translate a charming Cantonese idiom. This devaluation of the female gender directly led to one of the darkest elements of Chinese traditions and culture: two thousand years of gendercide committed against the female sex.
Till today, and perhaps aggravated by China's one-child policy and the lower earning power of women, the Chinese people are still killing and aborting female infants to the tune of millions. The sex ratio at birth (SRB) of China in 2005 was recorded at 121 males to 100 females, rising drastically from 106:100 in 1979. By 2020, men are expected to outnumber women by 30 million. This is what our Chinese "culture" and "tradition" of passing down family names exclusively through the male line represent to me. Our Y-chromosomal surnames are the symbolic bloody knives that have killed hundreds of millions of innocent girls over two dozen centuries of deadly sexism.
So tell me: how can I brand these sins of our fathers into the very identity of my innocent baby boy? How can I meekly comply and add to the silent assent for this "traditional" idea that men are better than women, that I am somehow superior to my wife? Am I not a man of principle?
And I assure you that more than anybody else, I have considered the consequences that might be visited on Darwin because of his unconventional name. Will he be teased or even bullied for it? Will people question his legitimacy behind his back or even to his face? Will he hate me for singling him out by giving him his mother's name instead of mine?
 |
| A 9-month-old Darwin, wondering how that piece of cardboard would taste like. |
I don't have the answers to those question. What I do know is that I do not want him to grow up thinking that men are more important than women. And I certainly do not want him to carry the same two thousand years old cultural burden my father did which resulted in the murder of countless baby girls and made a grandfather call his innocent baby grandson a bastard.
Besides, what the fuck is Chinese culture anyway? Some sinologists have argued that the earliest Chinese people might have even practiced matrilineal naming conventions because when we look at the Chinese character for "surname" (姓) we can see that it is made up of the radicals of woman (女) and born (生). I neither read or write Chinese, nor worship any of my forebears' deities but that is somehow okay? And why are we wearing T-shirts, jeans and Western-style dresses instead of changsans and qípáos?
We have to admit to ourselves that the "Chinese culture" of any century is going to appear strange, offensive and even blasphemous when examined by a Chinese person from a preceding century. That is because culture is a constantly evolving construct and anyone who tries to defend any cultural tradition as the "correct" version is going to fail inevitably before the jackboots of progress.
My parents are not the enforcers of Chinese culture but rather, its victims. Their beliefs which formed the barrier that separated them from getting to know their only grandchild are not their own beliefs, but that of generations past - all of them insolently making little changes to their cultural traditions every step of the way anyway. Now, nine months after Darwin arrived into this world, my mother have since let it go and have chosen to fully embrace him. As for my old man, I texted my him this morning with an awkward, tentative Father's Day wish. I have not given up on him. I once met a beef noodle seller in Subang Jaya who recognised me and told me that my father is one of the nicest, most decent men he knew, and refused to let me pay for my lunch. I know that. Deep inside my father beats the heart of a good man.
"Thank you, son," he replied.
It's a start. Perhaps one day, he might even be proud of what I did.
RELATED POSTS:
Being a Woman in Malaysia
Naming Darwin
On both sides of Father's Day,
k0k s3n w4i
48 comments:
"Bend and be straight,
yield and remain whole"
"The six relations are not harmonious,
There is filial piety and kind affection."
-Dao De Jing
no matter your views on patriarchy and the cruel policies of the Communist Party of China, i cant help but feel that you never considered what the consequences of this might be.
Confuncianism has its foundations in the Tao, so you could reconsider your views on our culture.. many things about culture evolve, but some do not, and patriarchy hasnt changed since the Qin dynasty, possibly even before.
aborting female babies is only a symptom of the deeper problems of cruel and corrupted government, and widespread poverty. blaming all of china for the actions of their government is slightly irrational, no?
Ian Hooi: no matter your views on patriarchy and the cruel policies of the Communist Party of China, i cant help but feel that you never considered what the consequences of this might be.
I wrote this 1,400-word essay on my thoughts behind my decision (and three other essays preceding this on the same topic) and yet you are saying that I have never considered it.
This is not an indictment against cruel communist policies. In the 19th century, BEFORE communism took hold of China, female infanticide was documented to be rampant. Drowning, suffocating, and starving female infants were common practices but it declined precipitously during the Communist era. In 1980, the Communist government of China actually published a paper denouncing female infanticide as a "feudalistic evil".
Confuncianism has its foundations in the Tao, so you could reconsider your views on our culture.. many things about culture evolve, but some do not, and patriarchy hasnt changed since the Qin dynasty, possibly even before.
Slowly and surely we are beginning to recognise gender equality in this world. Women are now found in most traditionally male jobs (though they are still earning less), allowed to vote and holding high political positions. Soon, this Chinese patriarchy will go down as well and I am not going to stand on the wrong side of history.
And so what if a horrible, sexist practice had occurred for a very long time? Does it therefore mean it should be preserved?
aborting female babies is only a symptom of the deeper problems of cruel and corrupted government, and widespread poverty. blaming all of china for the actions of their government is slightly irrational, no?
It is very irrational of you to gloss over the inherent sexism of the Chinese people in selecting female infants to abort/kill, blaming it all on a cruel and corrupted government. As I've pointed out earlier, the practice of female infanticide long predated Communism.
You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine in thinking that liberal Chinese men simply just lack the balls to do what I did. It is easy to stand by one's principles when those principles agree with the cultural milieu, isn't it?
血濃於水
Your parents will come around it eventually (hopefully). I am just wondering how this rejection will affect Darwin when he is older. How is this affecting Cheryl because you made no indication whether she agrees & supports your decision. And if this is just your decision to make as the head of the family and father of the child, isn't this the same patriarchal practice you despise?
When first I read of your decision to use Cheryl's surname as Darwin's own, I though then that its a pretty ballsy thing for you to do and wondered how would your family and Cheryl's take it.
I don't agree on it, but hey, its a free world and you do as yours truly pleases. As you say Kok, you have your opinion, I have mine.
And might I add that at times, as stubbornly principled as you are, I still don't fully comprehend why you do the things that you do knowing full well the consequences that might befall you and your family.
Perhaps you have more balls and fortitude, and maybe a tad crazier than the other liberals out there, I don't know man...but you are one real piece of work, KOk..
Truly a literal man of principles
Oh yeah, this reminds me of a scene in Mel Gibson's The Patriot. If I recall correctly, in a town hall meeting, Mel Gibson's character, a famous war hero, was asked to voice his opinion and ultimately vote on whether their townsmen should send their sons ( including his ), brothers husbands to go to war against the British.
To the surprise and dismay of many, in particular his own son, he voted no and prefers diplomacy with the British, no more how futile the attempt.
When questioned on his principles, he being a war hero, ferocious fighter of justice and all, he said
" I'm a parent. I have no luxuries of principles." and left.
Just a though Kok, just a thought.
Anonymous: How is this affecting Cheryl because you made no indication whether she agrees & supports your decision. And if this is just your decision to make as the head of the family and father of the child, isn't this the same patriarchal practice you despise?
Cheryl and I both decided on this. Why would you think i did this against her will? I would think that of all the men you will meet in your lifetime, I would be least likely to do something like that.
Patrick Y: The quote is: "I'm a parent. I haven't got the luxury of principles." Also clearly, my parents could afford the luxury of principles. And so could I.
Now, I put to you in turn this quote that is commonly attributed to Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
The sexism in Chinese culture and traditions (with all of its marginalisation and the murder of women) is a disturbingly entrenched part of my race's culture. As I've asked in my post, "how can I meekly comply and add to the silent assent" of such obvious injustice? Apparently you can. Because it's easy to just obey, isn't it? Like the Nazi officers who were just "following orders"? Like the rest of World War 2 Germany which just went with the flow? You just can't be bothered because it's not your gender that's being discriminated against.
If you have it your way, you will continue perpetuating the Chinese idea that women are inferior to men for another two thousand years (and all its sordid implications with it), won't you? All you need to do is do nothing.
Just a thought, Patrick, just a thought.
For the record, my family didn't think it was a good idea either. And like everyone else involved, their first reaction was to blame the girl - "It must be her fault, her idea. She must have forced her husband to do such an awful thing."
These were the things that were asked/said to my face:
[Why make him take your name? Darwin is his son]
Oh, and (he's) not mine?
[Yeah, but what would his parents think/feel?]
Right. What would MY parents think/feel? They would have readily accepted their grandson to be of another name and love him anyway. My nephew is not a Cheah and my parents dote on him just as much as his other set of grandparents. So why is it that when the roles are reversed, we are expected to behave differently?
[But he is disowned...]
That wasn't our decision. People around us are free to get to know Darwin & love him unconditionally. If they choose not to just because of his name, then I guess it is a kind of love he can do without.
Yeah, I get it, Kok.
This so-called Chinese patriarchal practice has dark roots and you're not going to brand your son with it.
Hey, I'm Chinese myself but I'm not condemning you one bit. I applaud you instead for your efforts to stand by your principles.
While I'm pretty liberal, I'm pretty contented to just, as you so oddly put it..."obey" as per this so-called dark practice.
You can't obviously. But I can.
What I can't do is bear the fact that should I choose to do what you do, my family will be torn apart. I can't bear having my own beloved mother disown me. I can't bear having my father utter accusations and profanities at me and my child as a result of my actions. I definitely can't bear damaging long loving ties with any of my immediate family members. I just can't and wont put my loved ones through that.
I can't. But apparently you can. Hat's off to you.
By the way, does your mom and dad, relatives, Cheryl's parents know of the dark reasons behind this practice before you pointed it out to them ? I bet they don't. Ask a Chinese layman on the streets and I bet they don't too.
But you do and you decided to act on it. Do you think its worth the anguish ?
All power to you, but I wonder about the following:
1. I can't help but think your dislike of the patrilineal surname is some kind of genetic fallacy. Sure it may be the product of the bloody patriarchal suppression of women (which is unproved by your data, by the way - there is a change from matrilineal to patrilineal surnames in Chinese history, but I haven't seen any accompanying evidence of what cause it), and sure it may have coexisted with the abortion of girls, but was it actually caused by patriarchy? Did it actually cause patriarchy? Or, as an administrative practice, is it basically correlated - with correlation not implying causation and all that jazz?
After all, "goodbye" was once a shortened form of "God be with ye" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=good-bye). Should atheists stop saying that word too?
2. You say you don't want him to grow up thinking that men are more important than women. Fair enough. But is there actually any empirical evidence that giving him a matrilineal surname in a patrilineal culture will achieve that? After all, plenty of feminists - Naomi Wolf and Camille Paglia to name two - have been entirely happy retaining their father's surnames and leaving their children with their husband's surnames. In Sri Lanka, on the other hand, matrilineal and bilineal inheritance goes hand in hand with ... women pregnant after sexual abuse being married to their rapists by default!
Because trying to achieve an outcome by a means which isn't empirically demonstrated to favour it ... that sure sounds like wishful thinking. But I could be wrong.
3. You listed a lot of questions: whether Darwin would be teased or bullied, have his legitimacy questioned, or hate you for singling him out. Then you say "I don't have the answer." Well, again going back to the empirical: do you know anyone with an unusual naming choice who hasn't had these happen to them? Or, taking a statistical viewpoint, don't you know many more people with unusual names who were bullied than people with unusual names who weren't? And don't you know many more people who would bully those with unusual names than those who wouldn't?
Then, given all the empirical evidence that bullying would be much more likely than not, you can only say "I don't know the answer" if you have some kind of countervailing argument. Is there some reason that, in this particular case, all the statistics above would fail to apply?
I'm sure there must be some reason. Because if there isn't, then you couldn't have truthfully said "I don't know". You would actually have known, but then chosen not to - not rational behaviour, but entirely ideological.
Wonder what you think about these three thoughts I have.
U said your mom disowned u, so all your things in your house in Melaka got thrown out? U cut off from your inheritance, so what u lost - the family business in town, a factory, a plantation, a Ali Baba license etc?
Maybe u are too big for Melaka! Come make your second home in penang, unless you prefer to settle in Sarawak and dance naked to the call of the wild? Plus, why not Darwin Kok-Cheah in the first place? If married women can hyphenate, why not follow suit?
Why not go for gold and start a new line altogether with Darwin, firstborn of House Chok? That would be all sorts of fun and awesome! (I'd like credit, please, as well as rights to name secondborn.)
On a more serious note, imo it's much ado over nothing:
I think I understand your cause and I can see it has noble intentions but it's a heavy burden to lay upon your little baby's shoulders and I'm not sure it will achieve much apart from say 'fuck you' to your families and heritage.
Darwin's very upbringing by the both of you would ensure he is respectful to women. Now, his life will probably be more difficult than it needs to be - it'll be up to the type of person he is whether he respects or resents women more in the end.
I'm not a parent so this is easy talk but I would be wary of imposing my crusades on my child. There's probably a fine line between making a point to them and making a point through them. Who's to say which is which, so I guess you can only do what you think is best, as you are.
I took my father's surname; I'll be happy for my children to take my husband's surname. I do not associate these with gender inequality or discrimination nor do I see it as their perpetuation. I believe education is the solution and the change is gradual but it will come.
As old as our culture is, it has much growing to do but i don't doubt at all that it has been and that it will continue to.
I can see the proof in my family. My grandfather favoured his sons in typical Chinese patriachy but allowed his daughters education and freedom to choose their own husbands and lives unlike his parents before him. My parents try to treat their children equally and i know i will get an equal share of whatever they leave unlike my mother but I still grew up being told I should not argue with my brothers because I'm a girl.
It's an evolution, change doesn't happen overnight. And I don't think changing my child's surname will hasten it.
Patrick Y: I have explained my reason clearly and there were no ambiguities associated with my decision.
shernren: 1. I can't help but think your dislike of the patrilineal surname is some kind of genetic fallacy.
I assure you that on this, you are wrong. Even apart from all the sexist cultural contexts, the naming conventions of the Chinese people is by itself a culture of injustice. It cannot be clearer that our observation of how women conceding in naming their children as a non-event but when a child carries his mother's surname, it is immediately seen as an abomination - one that resulted in my family's reaction. My father called a baby a bastard, all because he carries his mother's "taint". How much more obvious the toxicity has to be to you before you acknowledge it as a problem?
While there are no studies directly identifying the Chinese' sexist practice have resulted in sex-selective abortions, it is undeniable that males are much more highly valued then females, and the "passing down of one's family name" is probably the most common answers given by Chinese parents for their favouring of boys - so I don't doubt that it figures just as frequently in the minds of those who would kill or abandon female children. And if it "was" meant to be just an administrative practice, that is no longer the case judging from society's reaction to children carrying their mother's surname. Besides, a matrilineal makes much more sense for genealogical purposes as it is easier to determine who a person's mother is rather than that person's father - so don't kid yourself that all of it isn't rooted in sexism.
Regardless whether the correlation is causative or not, it is - as I have said in my post - a symbol of the sexism that have resulted in the deaths of countless women. Adolf Hitler's name isn't the thing that caused him to be a genocidal ass but all the same, we do not honour him by naming our children after him. Is it so hard then to understand my refusal to honour Chinese sexism by refusing to practice patrilineality?
2. You say you don't want him to grow up thinking that men are more important than women. Fair enough. But is there actually any empirical evidence that giving him a matrilineal surname in a patrilineal culture will achieve that?
We can never be sure what sort of person our children will turn out. Straight religious couples can have gay children. Perfectly law abiding couples can raise criminals. There are some data on naming - like names with unusual spelling leading to difficulty learning to spell or "ghetto" names being associated with poorer school perfomance, lower salary and even criminality. Unfortunately, no study have been done on kids who carry their mothers' surnames (controlling for single mothers, of course) so your guess is as good as mine.
One thing's for sure: he will never take a man's right to name his children after him for granted. He is the living proof of that.
Well, again going back to the empirical: do you know anyone with an unusual naming choice who hasn't had these happen to them?
Let's. Let's take my own experience for example. My surname is Kok. I am not ashamed of it and it is more a part of my identity than any other part of my name. But I can tell you that I drew a disproportionate amount of teasing and bullying back in school for it. I have heard it all. In fact, I am still being teased about it today by adults both on the web and in real life. Go through the comments in my blog. Whenever anyone disagrees with me, they make sport of my name. It is like a fucking lightning rod.
I doubt that Darwin will have it worse than me with his mother's more innocuous surname. So can you say that Darwin will draw less teasing and bullying if he takes my surname instead? I know you can't.
Darshan: I didn't opt for hyphenation because it simply doesn't work for Chinese names. Plus it looks ugly and I think that my wife contributed to Darwin's birth far more than I can ever hope to match.
c3rs3i: On a more serious note, imo it's much ado over nothing
Exactly. It should be trivial that I had my son carry his mother's surname. But the fact that my parents (and most of the commenters) here reacted the way they did, it is clear that it isn't nothing at all. The fact that it can make a grandfather call his first grandson a bastard and possibly miss out on being a part of the kid's life over it, it is clearly a diseased aspect of culture that needs to be challenged.
I am both making a point to my child and to anyone else who witness this. It is always going to be hard the first few times anyone does something different but if no one does differently, things will never change. Do you think that all the freedom you enjoy now in spite being a woman just happened? Don't you think the first women who decides to choose their own husbands also went against their parents wishes and perhaps, drew even worst reactions from their families? My wife and I decided to break away from an unambiguously unfair and sexist practice. We decided to deal with the difficulties that may come out of it. More than making a point, we did it because we believe it is the right thing to do. It is easy to comply with traditions, but with all due respect, if everyone thinks like you, you might just be some man's property right now, uneducated, with seven kids because your husband said so.
I agree that change doesn't happen overnight. It only happens when someone decides to do something small differently, like deciding that a child doesn't necessarily need to carry his dad's surname.
Yes, the ‘much ado over nothing’ applied at least as much to your family’s reaction as to your actions. I guess I just don’t see why any of it is a big deal – Just as I think your family made an unnecessary fuss, I also believe that Darwin being a Cheah is not a huge statement either. Don’t mistake me, I fully support your right to name Darwin and I thank you for your support of womens’ rights - I just don’t think this particular action will achieve much. Will female infanticide diminish in China because of it? No. Do I think the good it brings will outweigh the heartbreak it has caused? No. Though I’d really rather be wrong.
Maybe I’m not thinking widely enough - you’ll have to forgive me, this is not my plot after all. As far as I can see, the main statement made by Darwin being a Cheah is to your families who are of and perhaps, therefore, stuck in the past. The present future belongs to our generation and later, Darwin’s - I don’t see that his surname is an issue for these ages nor do I believe that patriarchal sexism would live on through it if he were a Kok. To me, it feels like you’ve kicked up sandstorm to change history when the present future is already there - If Darwin wanted his child’s surname to be Spock, I don’t think you’d have an issue with it.
In any case, it was/is your choice. I don’t see it the same way (and maybe that’s naiveté or maybe it just emphasises that I’m not the target audience of all of this), but clearly you do, so good on you for sticking up for what you believe in.
Please do not presume, respectfully or clearly not, to know how I think. Yes, women over history have fought to earn the basic rights I have today. And when a worthy occasion arises, I too will be out there flinging my flaming bra. I told my parents to think long and hard about what they were doing, bringing me up to be submissive to men. Just as I told them that I thought, as they should, that it was perfectly acceptable and entirely up to me if I wanted to have kids out of wedlock or marry a woman.
Don’t you worry that I won’t have glass ceilings to perforate and that when the time comes, I will sit back and have 7 kids about it. Just that... if I do have kids, them taking my husband’s name or my father’s name won’t have too liberating an effect on me as a woman.
Ps: I am glad your mum has come around. I’m sure your dad will too. Do work on him while Darwin is still cuddly.. I think that would help.
c3rs3i: Just as I think your family made an unnecessary fuss, I also believe that Darwin being a Cheah is not a huge statement either.
Admitting to being an atheist is not a huge statement in itself either. But it is in Saudi Arabia where (last I heard) you can be charged for terrorism for it there. The size of the statement depends on how big a reaction it causes - and 9 months after Darwin was born and having to deal with ALL the reactions of my friends, colleagues and family members, I would unabashedly said that I made a fucking large one. And it got to you enough to move you (and others) to write your long comments as well.
Please do not presume, respectfully or clearly not, to know how I think.
I have no need of presumptions. You confirmed to me very clearly, in your own words, that you don't believe that standing by one's principles (which you have described as "noble") is worth straining one's relationship with one's family.
By that same logic, maybe gay people should never marry or date openly either and atheists should never admit to their non-belief as well? And I should just shut it and not do what I feel like doing something I had been mulling over since high school. And I know that if I went with giving Darwin my surname, I would forever feel like a hypocrite but that's just what my wife and I have to stomach, right?
In any case, it was/is your choice. I don’t see it the same way (and maybe that’s naiveté or maybe it just emphasises that I’m not the target audience of all of this), but clearly you do, so good on you for sticking up for what you believe in.
You are not the target audience at all. My wife is. My child is. And aside from that, I expect it to speak to everyone who have never even considered that such a thing could be conceivable. Here are some selected comments I received on Twitter and Facebook on this:
"Omg. Finally! Loving the article to BITS..."
"You have made a huge difference there right there. 😊
Somewhere down the line, we all hope many other men will practice what you have stood up for."
"I had no idea. I'd read your blogpost about his surname ages ago but never imagined that'd happened. so proud of you."
"I am amazed by the surname issue. I mean, my view on a child having a mother's surname is certainly myopic therefore I might still side with having the father's. Who knows, I might change my view and follow yours in the future. Anyway, congrats man."
"Congrats and all the best, i plan to do so for my kids too some day"
"You convinced me, Sen Wai. Probably the only difficulty I can foresee when the time comes is my parents."
The above reflects the comments I have gotten in real life as well. For people to even consider it to be possible, someone has to do it first. Maybe you don't see how my decision will matter in the grand scheme of things but I don't think Rosa Parks knew what her refusal to move from her seat would mean in her future either. You may be right that what my wife and I did would be for naught - but it allowed us to live knowing we practiced what we believed in and that we tried.
c3rs3i: I took my father's surname; I'll be happy for my children to take my husband's surname. I do not associate these with gender inequality or discrimination nor do I see it as their perpetuation.]
I'm not sure if you read the previous post on the naming of Darwin. It is legally not allowed for a child to take the mother's name in Malaysia unless the child is born out of wedlock or other unfortunate circumstances. If this isn't gender inequality or a form of discrimjnation, I don't know what it is.
[if I do have kids, them taking my husband’s name or my father’s name won’t have too liberating an effect on me as a woman]
I see that you think it is pointless and defeat the purpose because you assume my son takes after my father's name. Both my parents are Cheah, so technically speaking, Darwin & I are named after both.
As a woman who has gone through the entire 9 months of pregnancy & risks of child birth, the pains of labor, nursing (mastitis is a nightmare) and then putting my career on hold to care for our baby (even now as I am job hunting, the positions I am being considered aren't exactly 'mother friendly' & employers avoid hiring mothers with newborns) ; having my son named after me feels pretty liberating to me.
Taking after the mother's name is seen as a badge of shame and the child is reduced or assumed to be a bastard child. If any of you still think it is too "trivial" to even bother, I have nothing more to say.
I'm just glad my husband doesn't think that and actually meant it.
ps: koksenwai, can you like turn off the bloody verification thingy. It's annoying every time I comment via mobile. And I cant edit wtf.
KSW:
I have no intention of imposing my views on you or others, not without stronger cause or significant impact anyway. I do not think that what you did was wrong nor do I oppose it, only that there are consequences and I wouldn’t do the same because I do not (yet?) see the value in it that you do. I raised the concerns I have with such an action thinking an open discussion and differing views, as we have had in the past, were welcome here. Mind sharpens mind and I do appreciate a good discussion and can even be persuaded to change my opinion by one. However it looks like there is not an open or even civil one to be had here and my opinion on this, if contrary to yours, is not welcome. I am disappointed, of course – you chose to try to make a difference but decided to take the offensive and nurture any curiosity-led change from it by bludgeoning others with your views. This is your space, that is your choice, do as you will.
And for the record, I confirmed nothing of that sort - You have twisted my words and pettily bent them to suit your purpose. It is beneath you and unfair to me and I no longer view further discussion as worthwhile pursuing.
Cheryl:
It’s a shame your comment came after I’d finished drafting my response above. Takes a bit out of my grand exit if I slam the door on KSW then peek back round to talk to you but never mind, I’m not petty like that *stares hard at KSW*.
No, I had not considered that it was illegal in Malaysia only contentious, and you’re right, it formed the premise of my views. Well, what a stupid stupid law. Isn’t it a good thing then that you are doing something about it.
And such a shame your parents have had such a strong negative reaction to it, moreso your mother. That said, I’m not sure my parents (or mother) would react any better but then they do do a lot of things for the sake of doing them as they have always been done, as do a lot of people. I will have to ask them of their views on the matter and I’m sure their heads, too, will need fixing.
I do apologise if I what I said was taken as belittlement of your efforts; please be assured it wasn’t intended as such – Things are easier where I am that I sometimes forget/underestimate how backwards the mothership is and that others have to fight hard for the things I take for granted or the options I don’t care to exercise.
Still not saying this is something I would personally fight for (we will all pick our own battles) but like I said, I’m not a mother - a long and painful labour and mastitis might change my mind yet; we’ll have to wait and see.
I'm sorry you're having a hard time finding employment in your motherhood - this is actually something I feel more strongly about and would fight for.
Over here, mothers have it relatively good with up to 12 months maternity leave (3 months fully paid + 9 months on minimum statutory pay) and the option to come back to work on a part-time basis after that – the current contention is for fathers to have the right to more paternity leave (currently they only have up to 2 weeks after which they can use any remainder maternity leave but only if the mother goes back to work).
I wanted to ask KSW but decided ‘slamming the door’ in his pompous face gave me more gratification - How are your parents about it now, hopefully better?
c3rs3i: The discussion had been completely open and your views suffered no censoring. Neither have I, at any point, asked you to stop disagreeing with me. And I have not twisted your words. I am reflecting to you what your words sounded like. You simply don't think my pursuance of my principles is worth the price I paid - in a nutshell. Of course, the lengthy explanation I then gave including evidence (anecdotal perhaps) of actual impact arising from my decision didn't seem to move you. This is something I have mulled over for 9 months before I even found the courage to speak about it. On the very contrary of how offensively you think I have conducted myself, I felt that I have exercised great restraint in not saying 90% of what I really want to say when I find myself explaining my reasons to a steady stream of dissenting opinions - all of which saying I did no wrong, but that I shouldn't have done it. I'm not sure if it was evident but all of it pained me. It took me lots of months, starting from before Darwin's birth trying to talk to my father, agonising over every detail and possibility and options I had, and then dealing with the aftermath - so perhaps you can find it in your generous, generous heart to forgive me if I was teensy fucking bit annoyed when most of the feedback I am getting here is: "Maybe you should have thought harder about it."
Side note: I read something recently (can't remember where) where a child had been given both his mother and father's names because she was the last of her line. A (positive) big deal was made of it and there were a lot of comments about how great and noble he was. My thoughts were and still are - what is wrong with society that they think that he is noble by doing this? It is or should be her right not something bestowed/granted/conceeded by his graciousness.
KSW, you thought about it for months. I've thought about it for one blogpost and a bit. If you expected me to be on board immediately, I'm sorry, you're a good writer - but not that good. It doesn't mean I wouldn't have got there eventually if you had been more patient about it. I guess you can argue that you don't have to be nice about it - well, then shut up about people not agreeing with you.
c3rs3i: Actually, if you have read my previous responses, you'd find me testy but I don't think I have said to anyone "stop disagreeing with me, guys". You will also find that I addressed every question and argument directed to my person in detail.
well, then shut up about people not agreeing with you.
And I haven't exactly been whining about people disagreeing with me, have I? I only brought it up because you think I was being "pompous" and "petty" (I don't remember calling you any names). If I am not willing to address dissenting opinions, I would have closed the comments section long ago or deleted every comment that I don't like.
Instead, I took the trouble to go on Twitter and Facebook to copy and paste some positive responses to show you that perhaps, I have given hope or inspired some people with my action.
And again, I feel I cannot stress it enough, I did not do this to make a point or lay a "crusade" on my son's shoulder, as you put it. It came from a personal place. I did it because I can't live with myself if I don't. If what I did can open some eyes or change some minds, then I would be gladdened. But even if I know that nothing would come out of it, I would have done the same anyway.
A (positive) big deal was made of it and there were a lot of comments about how great and noble he was. My thoughts were and still are - what is wrong with society that they think that he is noble by doing this? It is or should be her right not something bestowed/granted/conceeded by his graciousness.
It should be her right, yes. And yes, society is messed up. My family's reaction was messed up. And in my opinion, it is amazingly messed up that even when people agree with me that I did the right thing, they still urge me to reconsider giving in to the people who are backwards, sexist and dogmatic about their cultural beliefs.
I haven't looked closely at your other responses but to me you got increasingly testy (I think rude is more apt but OK, whatever) when I wasn't convinced. Just because you didn't say 'don't disagree with me' doesn't mean your tone wasn't meant or construed as such.
And you didn't call me names? Sure, I lashed out with some PG name-calling but in retaliation to what? This:"if everyone thinks like you, you might just be some man's property right now, uneducated, with seven kids because your husband said so." 'Petty' and 'pompous' are mere finger waggles compared to the slap in the face you handed out there. And for what? Because you decided to take a few things I said out of context and mesh them into a convenient damning conclusion? For the unforgivable crime of not having fully comprehended the extent of your commitment and trying to understand it better? - people do say I'm a sweet kind thing, looks like it's true.
You can flirt with technicalities all you want (and others must not be bright enough that you have gotten away with it as often as you do) but honestly, I think it's a cheap trick - it greatly demeans and detracts from an intellectual discussion and I think it's a waste of my time if that's the level of debate on offer around here.
And the reason I wasn't convinced by the positive comments is because the praise has come too fast, too cheap (or looks like it has anyway). I don't know... maybe your entry was enough for some people to jump on the bandwagon but it wasn't for me. Changing naming convention like that, as trivial as I insist it should be, is BIG SHIT. Especially when your immediate families think the way they do. Those people were so quick to say good for you and that this is what they would do too. Have they REALLY thought about it? Will they REALLY do it when push comes to shove? Only they know. As for me, I can't respect anyone who would have such a light view on the matter and can say so easily that they too would do something like that.
Anyway, I'd like to get back to being constructive and say:
No, it was not apparent that this had been a difficult decision for you. From what I read, you had a thought and you decided to stick it to your family. Had I known there was a lot more to it than that, I wouldn't have asked/said the things I had to imply "Maybe you should have thought harder about it." now would i? That includes all the crusade stuff - I'm sorry that came across as harshly as it did; I can see you don't mean it as that (I'm not sure though, that it won't still amount to that) and also, after all that you've been through, how you might take to it quite badly.
Well now, having sifted through all the poop slung around, I think I understand things a little better now. This is still a battle I wouldn't choose for myself. If I were to battle for women's rights, I'd be more inclined to fight for rights to education, freedom of speech and action, maternity rights, getting rid of glass ceilings for women execs... things like that. But we will all choose our own battles and for what it's worth, I do sincerely wish you good luck with yours.
Here's some general info to wake up to since I think we're all playing nice again:
From a discussion with someone else, it would seem, given the single child policy, it isn't too uncommon in China for children to get a product (typically just combined, unhyphenated) of both their mother and father's surnames to allow continuity of both lines. Nor is it unheard of for two children in the same family to have different surnames, each taking after either the mother or father (extention of the single child policy allows a single child marrying another single child to have two children). Also, children have taken just their mother's surnames where there is higher threat of her family line ending. Lastly, matrilinieal clans still exist even if they are almost a negligible minority.
You can say it's just hearsay of course, but I see little reason for this to be made up. And you can take from it what you will - perhaps the hope that the oppression and suppression of women you believe manifests through patrilineal naming conventions is not not uniform across all chinese people.
26 comments so far ... is this a record so far for you Dr KSW? Ok, it is not legally allowed here for a child to take the mother's surname unless ba----d or some poor luck, so if the govt one day finds out and takes you and Cheryl to court to force a change to the surname Kok, then what? Both of you prepared to take the stand, even ready to pay fine or go to jail to make a point? This will make headlines!
c3rs3i: [And such a shame your parents have had such a strong negative reaction to it, moreso your mother.]
My parents reacted the way most parents would when it comes to matters pertaining to their daughters who are married - They were worried what my in laws would think & that my behaviour reflects poorly on my upbringing. (That said, they have accepted that it was our decision to make & have always been there for Darwin. My mom is secretly proud of what we did, she's a closet feminist). Anyway, fact is, I didn't go all out to make this my battle. It was brought to me. Despite what they say about how "noble" motherhood is and the obvious sacrifices women take because of how they are designed biologically,our society & the system itself do not think so. They think and made it a badge of shame. A child is automatically assumed to be a bastard and born out of UNFORTUNATE circumstances the moment he/she takes the mother's name. So, an association to our mothers who brought us into this world by name, is a bad bad, dirty thing? I asked the women around me, they think it is unfair too. Some of them had told me they wished their husbands were thoughtful enough & didn't assume the right to naming the child after them a given right. There are plenty of women out there who feel what I feel and think the way we do, but lack courage to make the first step & break the norm. And I certainly hope that more parents would consider this an option when it comes to naming their kids and perhaps one day, we can do away with such a sexist law.
[This is still a battle I wouldn't choose for myself. If I were to battle for women's rights, I'd be more inclined to fight for rights to education, freedom of speech and action, maternity rights, getting rid of glass ceilings for women execs... things like that.]
Yes, there are more pressing issues that concern women like the ones you mentioned above. Since we are talking about feminism or the spirit of it, then let me just be clear about what it is. It is about equal opportunities for both gender.
The opportunity of naming Darwin is not made equal for both of us. Not for KSW, not for me. This is why I think it's worth the heartache. It is about the basic rights of ANY parents being able to name their child as they wish without having to deal with the cultural/legal backlash.
And personally, I think the ones that are seen as a "non issue" and its inequality readily accepted as a part of culture so much so we have become blind to what it does to women are the ones we ought to think fiercely about.
*previous comment accidentally deleted by me with his acc*
Just to clarify, I'm not trivialising what you're doing here by bringing up all those other causes. They, all of them, need fixing.
Ah, glad you have your parents support, at least. I guess the strongest objections were always going to come from Darwin's paternal grandfather, if anyone. And understandably so... it's his name, his ancestry, his until now unquestioned right to see the continuity of the family name that's being 'rejected' here. I can't even imagine how hurt his pride must be. Yes, we all know that these kinds of believes belong in the past. But as I said, he is OF that era and it was never going to be easy for him to accept it, rightly or not.
I can't help but feel a little sad for him - I like to think he didn't mean it when he called Darwin a bastard. Or that it is a shameful thing for him to be named after his mother's family. Or all the other very hurtful things he must have said. Because as hurt as you are by what he said (or what was said on his behalf), he was that hurt and more to say it at all. About his own son. Grandson. Daughter-in-law.
You and KSW get the joy/pride/commendation of naming your son, standing by your principle, fulfilling your dream. What should have been a great joy for him - the birth of his grandson - has instead become a symbol of his own 'failure'. To raise his son to be proud of the family name to want to carry it on; To see his family name passed down, for himself and in fulfilment of duty to his ancestors. Every generation of Kok has seen it's family name pass down from father to son to grandson. But not his. Not his grandson.
And what of the social repercussions that always make things so much harder? How does he hold up his head to tell his friends, who probably all have the same mindset, that his son doesn't want his own grandson to take his name? How does he deal with the whys and how comes? Easy for you and KSW to say that he should see it as a good thing, stand up for you and be proud. He's the one who has to do it. And what did he even do to earn this.
Maybe I'm getting carried away with myself and making all of these up and he's really just a mean, selfish, sexist, old man. But I like to think not.
You named Darwin after your family, that is your right. But it was never going to come cheap.
As for anyone else who thinks Darwin taking his mother's name is a thing of shame, who cares what they think anyway.
c3rs3i: None of us expect it to be easy. If you had read ksw's post & he had mentioned is before, he had thought long and hard about it and understood what that would mean for his father. How he understood his father's rage. What he (or we) hope, in spite of everything is that for him to realise that it doesn't have to be this way. We make our own decisions & his father made his own. He chooses to miss out on Darwin's babyhood and getting to know his first and only grandson. Which is more important? A name that supposedly makes you family or a real person who needs knowing & love?
I don't know about ksw but I refuse to be responsible for his bitterness & whatnot. That is his choice.
Darshan: The wording of the law allowed some ambiguities so I doubt anyone would press the issue legally. It's like the sort of law that tells people it is illegal to sodomise anyone - it only gets dragged out when anyone is politically motivated to do so. And the longest comment thread in my blog is more than 100 comments long.
c3rs3i: If I were to battle for women's rights, I'd be more inclined to fight for rights to education, freedom of speech and action, maternity rights, getting rid of glass ceilings for women execs... things like that.
I have 2 things to say to this.
(1) You are assuming that this is the only battle I fight. It is not a "crusade" or "battle". In fact, as I have already pointed out, it is one expression of how I live my life because of what I believe in. If Malaysian society is against equal opportunity for women to get educated, I will fight to educate my hypothetical daughters. When rape victims are brought to my care, I will not tell them that they shouldn't have mixed with boys or scold them for drinking or not covering up like what our rape culture of a society loves to do because I (correctly) do not believe in victim blaming. Whenever anyone makes any sexist remark around me in the workplace, I will always be the first to criticise it (and I might have offended one of my senior consultants when I called him out for his remark that women these days are not brought up right, resulting in them being sluttier). This is just how I live my life. I don't start fights or battles. I am not imposing my principles and beliefs on anyone else. ALL the battles started when other people want to impose their beliefs on me.
And the reason I wasn't convinced by the positive comments is because the praise has come too fast, too cheap (or looks like it has anyway).
Most other comments were polite nothings with a smattering of people saying outright that they wouldn't dare do the same, in spite agreeing that I did the right thing. My social circle is pretty liberal. Many of them are already estranged from their family because they are gay/atheist. I think your dismissal of them has come too fast, too cheap.
c3rs3i: From a discussion with someone else, it would seem, given the single child policy, it isn't too uncommon in China for children to get a product (typically just combined, unhyphenated) of both their mother and father's surnames to allow continuity of both lines.
Here is a news article about an online poll in China regarding this.
Young parents clash over child's surname
80% of female respondents think it is okay for a child to bear his/her mother's surname. ¾ of male respondents opposed the idea. Keep in mind that this is an online poll meaning that those who (a) can afford to have internet, and (b) are better educated would have responded. Keep in mind that such a poll may draw more liberal feminists as well. Regardless, it signifies that giving a child his or her mother's surname is still probably an uncommon practice that faces a lot of opposition from men and traditionalists.
You can say it's just hearsay of course, but I see little reason for this to be made up. And you can take from it what you will - perhaps the hope that the oppression and suppression of women you believe manifests through patrilineal naming conventions is not not uniform across all chinese people.
I think you ought to have read my response to another commenter here who brought up a similar point. I wrote:
"Regardless whether the correlation is causative or not, it is - as I have said in my post - a symbol of the sexism that have resulted in the deaths of countless women. Adolf Hitler's name isn't the thing that caused him to be a genocidal ass but all the same, we do not honour him by naming our children after him. Is it so hard then to understand my refusal to honour Chinese sexism by refusing to practice patrilineality?"
And I fail to see how this would have influenced my decision. If I name my kid after his mother and no one makes a fuss about - that's great! If I did it and immediately received backlash for it, then it is because of sexist traditions are still a huge part of Chinese culture. I didn't name Darwin the way I did because I want to change how others think (but if some people are inspired by it then more power to them). I did it because the resistance to the idea that a child can bear his mother's surname and the idea that women are less valued leading to their gendercide are all abhorrent to me - and I would not practice any of it.
No, I had not considered that it was illegal in Malaysia only contentious, and you’re right, it formed the premise of my views. Well, what a stupid stupid law. Isn’t it a good thing then that you are doing something about it.
The law in Malaysia, regarding surnames, is rendered as such in Act 299: "The surname, if any, to be entered in respect of a legitimate child shall ordinarily be the surname, if any, of the father.
When I called and asked (as I have detailed in a previous post), I was told by the registrar that I couldn't name my son after my wife unless I declare him illegitimate. But as far as I can tell, the wording of the law is ambiguous enough that I feel it can be challenged if they want to make an issue of it. But if a woman and a man decides to fight it out, the law can be used to favour the man's case. There is no such law in China, so I am unsure how they would settle any disputes regarding surnames there.
c3rs3i: You and KSW get the joy/pride/commendation of naming your son, standing by your principle, fulfilling your dream.
I assure you I did not get a lot of commendations for what I did. Just look at this comment section.
Maybe I'm getting carried away with myself and making all of these up and he's really just a mean, selfish, sexist, old man. But I like to think not.
I think that the whole conceit of my entire post, isn't it? Here's what I said,
"I don't blame them and I certainly don't blame my father. In many ways, his reaction was understandable. The weight of thousands of years of Chinese tradition compelled him to denounce my action as nothing less than a complete abomination, and it is just as hard for him to put down that cultural burden as it is for a person raised as a Christian to blaspheme in the name of Jesus or a Muslim to eat bacon."
"My parents are not the enforcers of Chinese culture but rather, its victims."
"Deep inside my father beats the heart of a good man."
Maybe you should think of this instead as I coming out as a homosexual to my father. He would've probably reacted in very much the same way, thinking he had failed as a parent in bringing me up right. He too would have to deal with his peers regarding his gay son. So how far do we have to go to placate the sensibilities of those who hold on to past bigotry? My father exercised his rights to name his kids - all of them - after himself. My wife and I exercised our rights to do differently. Fair.
Easy for you and KSW to say that he should see it as a good thing, stand up for you and be proud. He's the one who has to do it. And what did he even do to earn this.
It is not easy to say at all. I sat on this post from the day Darwin was born. Now he is 9 months old. It took me this long because it was so, so fucking hard for me to say any of it.
urgh..I'm gonna stop commenting on your blog via mobile & when I have baby Darwin in my arms...soooo many typo they annoy me and unlike fb, I cant edit...grrr
Re babies’ names in China, I told you as a general FYI. It was news to me and I thought it interesting enough to share. It was not to show your cause up or make any sort of point – any kind of argument it could have made would have been weak anyway.
Re your twitter commendations, there was no way for me to verify their quality and I didn’t want to overcredit or discredit them so I took them at their face value, which in support of our discussion was very little value.
I should make it clear that I do think it is perfectly within your rights to name your child. I think the repercussions you have faced, whilst not unexpected in your environment, are not right nevertheless. I think you have done a good thing by your wife and women-kind and the right thing given your principles.
I previously said that I do not wish to impose my views on you and perhaps you took that to mean that I have different views. No. Fundamentally, no. It’s not purely apathy – I wouldn’t impose my views because there wouldn’t be much to impose. (I guess we can debate what constitutes an imposition another day since my views are all still here, and at length too, imposed or not…)
And I’m not saying “It’s your right, but you shouldn’t have done it” I’m saying “It’s your right, but I wouldn’t do it”. You didn’t hear me the first time so maybe a simplistic example will help: I believe gay people have rights to be gay – I agree with them, I can defend them, but I’m not gay so I very simply won’t be.
Some of the intentions in your post sounded quite grand so I felt the need to say I didn’t think it would achieve quite that much. From our discussion I can see it stands for more than I thought it did and it has achieved more than I thought it would. I’m happy to allow for artistic liberties but otherwise I’m still not sure it’s quite the feminist revolution.
As for your dad, my heart broke a little writing the previous comment so if it’s anything like reality I would urge you to be more understanding. And before you get all quoteyquotey on me again, I’d better say that it does sound like you have been empathetic. I just think that with something like that, I’d be amazed if he gets over it in under a year. Sure, it’s your right and you only did what’s fair for you and your wife. But what’s fair to him includes giving him some time to come around and being understanding if he lashes out and is mean about it in the mean time - That just can't be too much to ask for your own father.
You made your choice and you (Cheryl at least) say he made his to be this way – to me, it doesn’t look like he saw a choice. And that comes with the mindset he has had for 60 (?) years – he can’t just drop it now just because you said so. Not won’t - Can’t. For him to see that it doesn’t have to be like this will take time. And like I said, it must hurt him to say such things too and to be out of his son’s and grandson’s life. I’ve already made so many assumptions here, I’ll just go ahead and make one more – He does/will regret missing out and he will probably carry that regret with him long after you’ve all made up.
ps Cheryl: At least you can log on as KSW and fix your comments later... I have to delete mine and look like a retarded troll.
c3rs3i: Just a few things,
You didn’t hear me the first time so maybe a simplistic example will help: I believe gay people have rights to be gay – I agree with them, I can defend them, but I’m not gay so I very simply won’t be.
Perhaps a more accurate wording of your analogy would be, "I believe gay people have rights to be gay - I agree with them, I can defend them, but even though I am gay myself, I wouldn't come out to my parents because I will offend their bigoted ideals if I do."
Some of the intentions in your post sounded quite grand so I felt the need to say I didn’t think it would achieve quite that much. From our discussion I can see it stands for more than I thought it did and it has achieved more than I thought it would. I’m happy to allow for artistic liberties but otherwise I’m still not sure it’s quite the feminist revolution.
You said the exact same thing my aunt said. I think I have explained it enough times that it is not meant to be a crusade/revolution/grand achievement so I won't bother saying it any more. I did the only thing I can live with without feeling like a hypocrite. That's the reason and its very personal (as I have explained HERE). So you can stop pissing in my campfire now.
I get the feeling that, like my family, you have your own ideas about my motives in spite of what I have already spelled out over multiple posts. Have you, at any time, see me say that I did it to effect change/make a point/start a revolution?
THE reason I have given more than 9 months ago was, and I quote:
"Very early on, I decided that Darwin should bear his mother's name, because no matter how I look at it, it doesn't make sense (or seem remotely fair) for him to bear mine since Cheryl was the one who put her body through the risks, hardships and dangers of pregnancy and childbirth. In fact, I would feel as if I am assuming undue credit even if we went with a joint surname. Even biologically speaking, the creation of new life is not a 50-50 venture - it's more like I came up with half an idea and my wife then proceeded to build a human being out of it. Aside from sexist Chinese traditions that depreciate women, is there any good reason at all for my son to inherit my name?"
Everything else are just explanations for why I find continuing with patrilineality unacceptable to me. To quote myself again: "This is what our Chinese "culture" and "tradition" of passing down family names exclusively through the male line represent to ME."
c3rs3i: But what’s fair to him includes giving him some time to come around and being understanding if he lashes out and is mean about it in the mean time - That just can't be too much to ask for your own father.
And do you think I have not done that? Do you think maybe I have not told him that Darwin will always be his grandson, waiting for him to come around? Why do you think I spent months talking to him prior to Darwin's birth, working through all his misgivings and questions, if not to give him more time?
But judging from your comments, I suppose you thought it was easy for us. Heck, you even used that word - "easy". And you thought we were basking in the "joy/pride/commendation of naming [our] son", standing by [our] principle, fulfilling [our] dream."
You certainly don't see how offensive your words have been to us, do you? We should be more "understanding"? How much more understanding can I get when here I am, writing an entire post saying the exact same bloody things you are preaching, preaching, preaching to us? About how difficult it is for someone who have spent his whole life believing something to be right to let it go, about how entrenched our traditional beliefs are? And ending it by implying that I am still waiting for my dad to come around? That I am still giving him time and that I don't blame him?
I don't want to go "quoteyquotey" on you again either so stop begging so damn hard for it.
c3rs3i: Too lazy to fix. And his fb, blog etc as well as mine are all open on the desktop but I'm mostly on mobile. I dont usually comment either, too much trouble as you can see.
Anyway, I think you misread what he wrote about his father. I don't think any of us expect him to get over it so soon. If he does, good. If he doesn't, then I guess that is just too bad. He can be upset about it for as long as he wish or he can learn to accept Darwin like what ksw's mother did and enjoy all the cute baby clips/pics update.
Also, while ksw is obligated (by blood & flesh) to emphatize, I am not. He is his father, not mine. I dont have to put up with the hurtful things he (or anyone for that matter) said about my son and my parents. And quite frankly, I don't really care.
Dr KSW, ok, you love your wife to the extent that you gave her surname to your son - an affirmation of mortal fragile sensuous love to be passed down the generations.
Frankly, 1000 more comments can be posted in the crossfire like 2 opposing artillery batteries but life must go on, right?
That said, I am waiting to read your post and view fotos of your 3 day hiking trip to this national park in Sarawak, can't recall the name. So astound my senses, bring me along on your adventure even if by proxy!
You need to chill. I don’t know why you keep getting wound up – Apart from the quoteyquotey bit which I did for my own amusement, I’m not even trying. I thought my words sounded polite and neutral, particularly in the last comment – Still, here you are back on the defensive/offensive. Clearly, this is a sensitive subject and I can do no right here - I don’t want to add to your grief, not unconstructively like this, so I’m going to walk away, OK?
Just 3 things before I go:
Re the feminist revolution, I just reread what I said and it didn't come out as I had intended so that's my bad. There should have been a line in there acknowledging that from your subsequent comments (about it not being a crusade etcetc), it turns out that that wasn't your objective anyway. The only point of that paragraph was to tie up a loose end and show the evolution of my thought on the matter from when I had first read your post to after you provided more clarification.
Re your dad, you didn't elucidate the extent of your patience so I wasn't to know. You cannot assume I know everything that you do - No matter how many times you quote the SAME damn thing to me, if I did NOT get from it what I wanted to know THE FIRST TIME, I think it's only fair to both of us that I clarify. Whether or not you think I succeeded, I think I have been fair and have been trying not to jump to conclusions. I did not assume you hadn't been patient and I did contemplate not saying anything at all. Only, I felt strongly enough about it to actually say something. There's no reason to shout at me for that and it's really really poorly done of you.
And NO. To continue from the previous analogy - YOU insist that I am gay and that I refuse to fight for myself in deference to my parents. YOU. NOT ME. I am telling you that if I were gay, I would fight. Of course, I would bloody fight, don't be stupid. BUT I AM NOT GAY. The very premise of all your beef with me is that YOU insist that I am gay and unprincipled and you REFUSE to listen when I tell you I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT. What... people don't have the right to be straight anymore?
Do you know what I’ve been consistently hearing from you? That because I’m apathetic about MY children taking MY name, I’m a purveyor of bigotry. I've tried to set the record straight in almost every comment here but you just REFUSE to see it. Either your logic is messed up or you're picking at a non-existent fight with me because you can't shout at your dissenters and you've projected all your animosity towards them on me.
I don't deserve this abuse and I'm not playing anymore but if you want a preview of me standing up for my principles, it includes a FUCK YOU, a slap in the face and a knee to your groin. Twice, for good measure. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO NAME MY CHILDREN TOO. EVEN IF IT IS AFTER THEIR FATHER. If someday I change my mind and fancy a child named after me, the same will apply.
You know what you like quotes so much, why don't you read some of mine:
Here is where I corrected my views / apologised for my misunderstandings:
"No, I had not considered that it was illegal in Malaysia only contentious, and you’re right, it formed the premise of my views. Well, what a stupid stupid law. Isn’t it a good thing then that you are doing something about it."
"I do apologise if I what I said was taken as belittlement of your efforts; please be assured it wasn’t intended as such "
"Just to clarify, I'm not trivialising what you're doing here by bringing up all those other causes. They, all of them, need fixing."
"That includes all the crusade stuff - I'm sorry that came across as harshly as it did; I can see you don't mean it as that (I'm not sure though, that it won't still amount to that) and also, after all that you've been through, how you might take to it quite badly."
"Re the feminist revolution, I just reread what I said and it didn't come out as I had intended so that's my bad."
Here is where I said that my comments/queries aimed to discuss/clarify/understand. I also admitted that I do not have all the information, only you do, but preferred clarifying instead of creating my own conclusions.
"I raised the concerns I have with such an action thinking an open discussion and differing views, as we have had in the past, were welcome here. Mind sharpens mind and I do appreciate a good discussion and can even be persuaded to change my opinion by one."
"No, it was not apparent that this had been a difficult decision for you. From what I read, you had a thought and you decided to stick it to your family. Had I known there was a lot more to it than that, I wouldn't have asked/said the things I had to imply "Maybe you should have thought harder about it." now would i?"
"KSW, you thought about it for months. I've thought about it for one blogpost and a bit. If you expected me to be on board immediately, I'm sorry, you're a good writer - but not that good. It doesn't mean I wouldn't have got there eventually if you had been more patient about it. I guess you can argue that you don't have to be nice about it - well, then shut up about people not agreeing with you."
"Re your dad, you didn't elucidate the extent of your patience so I wasn't to know. You cannot assume I know everything that you do - No matter how many times you quote the SAME damn thing to me, if I did NOT get from it what I wanted to know THE FIRST TIME, I think it's only fair to both of us that I clarify. Whether or not you think I succeeded, I think I have been fair and have been trying not to jump to conclusions."
Here is where I told you that I emphatised with your cause, fully agreed it was your right and that it was fair for you stand by your principles and exercise it. But that I would name MY children after their father (MY CHILDREN. MINE).
"In any case, it was/is your choice. I don’t see it the same way (and maybe that’s naiveté or maybe it just emphasises that I’m not the target audience of all of this), but clearly you do, so good on you for sticking up for what you believe in."
"Don’t you worry that I won’t have glass ceilings to perforate and that when the time comes, I will sit back and have 7 kids about it. Just that... if I do have kids, them taking my husband’s name or my father’s name won’t have too liberating an effect on me as a woman."
"I have no intention of imposing my views on you or others, not without stronger cause or significant impact anyway. I do not think that what you did was wrong nor do I oppose it, only that there are consequences and I wouldn’t do the same because I do not (yet?) see the value in it that you do."
"Still not saying this is something I would personally fight for (we will all pick our own battles) but like I said, I’m not a mother - a long and painful labour and mastitis might change my mind yet; we’ll have to wait and see."
"Well now, having sifted through all the poop slung around, I think I understand things a little better now. This is still a battle I wouldn't choose for myself. If I were to battle for women's rights, I'd be more inclined to fight for rights to education, freedom of speech and action, maternity rights, getting rid of glass ceilings for women execs... things like that. But we will all choose our own battles and for what it's worth, I do sincerely wish you good luck with yours."
"I should make it clear that I do think it is perfectly within your rights to name your child. I think the repercussions you have faced, whilst not unexpected in your environment, are not right nevertheless. I think you have done a good thing by your wife and women-kind and the right thing given your principles."
"I previously said that I do not wish to impose my views on you and perhaps you took that to mean that I have different views. No. Fundamentally, no. It’s not purely apathy – I wouldn’t impose my views because there wouldn’t be much to impose. (I guess we can debate what constitutes an imposition another day since my views are all still here, and at length too, imposed or not…)"
Here is where I POLITELY tried to correct you when you kept saying I am an unprincipled, spineless sheep.
"Please do not presume, respectfully or clearly not, to know how I think. Yes, women over history have fought to earn the basic rights I have today. And when a worthy occasion arises, I too will be out there flinging my flaming bra."
"And for the record, I confirmed nothing of that sort - You have twisted my words and pettily bent them to suit your purpose. It is beneath you and unfair to me and I no longer view further discussion as worthwhile pursuing."
"And I’m not saying “It’s your right, but you shouldn’t have done it” I’m saying “It’s your right, but I wouldn’t do it”. You didn’t hear me the first time so maybe a simplistic example will help: I believe gay people have rights to be gay – I agree with them, I can defend them, but I’m not gay so I very simply won’t be."
"And NO. To continue from the previous analogy - YOU insist that I am gay and that I refuse to fight for myself in deference to my parents. YOU. NOT ME. I am telling you that if I were gay, I would fight. Of course, I would bloody fight, don't be stupid. BUT I AM NOT GAY. The very premise of all your beef with me is that YOU insist that I am gay and unprincipled and you REFUSE to listen when I tell you I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT. What... people don't have the right to be straight anymore?"
I have been NOTHING but civil, if not nice. And where I have been mistaken or offensive, I have not hesitated to correct myself and apologise. But comment after comment, you persist with jumping down my throat for one imagined slight after the other.
Yes, on hindsight I could have been more careful with my words (joy/pride/commendation/easy) but the crux of everything I've been saying has been NOT been offensive or with intention to impose. I even said as much - "I have no intention of imposing my views on you". But you HAD to kick up a fuss and NITPICK. You couldn't even correct me nicely? You had to make a HUGE deal and throw your toys out of the pram about EVERY small/big/medium detail you weren't happy with? I would have apologised immediately if I had known I was being offensive, even if it was unintentionally. You didn't even give me a chance.
And how was I to know how fucking sensitive you would be about everything? You play HIGHLY OFFENSIVE; You bark about injustice and make yourself out to be this pillion of strength, standing against the tide but you can't take a little ACCIDENTAL bruising? Or even keep civil enough to ask for an apology?
You waited 9 months to post this but honestly, from everything, it wasn't long enough. You are NOT OBJECTIVE, you have NOT BEEN FAIR and you have NOT RESPONDED WITH INTEGRITY.
You were just spoiling for a fight weren't you? At least have the balls to tell it like it is. And me? I was the SUCKER who was nice enough to stick around lash after lash giving you the benefit of the doubt, telling myself it was all a misunderstanding. Well FUCK YOU.
You can't live with yourself if you're a hypocrite? YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. You fight against injustice carried out upon women? Well, here you are abusing my niceness. You fight for the rights of mothers to name their child but REPEATEDLY call me unprincipled because I would use that right to name my child after his father? All this despite me REPEATEDLY saying that I agree that Cheryl has a right for Darwin to be named after her? SO I ONLY HAVE PRINCIPLES IF I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU and name my child after myself?
WHAT A FUCKING HYPOCRITE.
Darshan: I have actually four already-completed and scheduled post which will go up on my blog every 5 days (the next is tomorrow) covering the first 2 days of our stay in Luang Prabang in Laos, a brief lighthearted piece on creationism, and a report of my visit to the Fairy Cave in Bau.
c3rs3i: You can't live with yourself if you're a hypocrite? YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. You fight against injustice carried out upon women? Well, here you are abusing my niceness.
My disagreeing with you, "abusing your niceness" is an injustice upon women? Really? I treated you the same way I treated any other commenter here. It would be hypocritical of me to treat you worse than I treat men - but I did not. So you can stop playing your "oppressed woman" card now.
And you are not nice at all c3rs3i. You are all backhanded barbs and pricks and assumptions upon my intentions.
You fight for the rights of mothers to name their child but REPEATEDLY call me unprincipled because I would use that right to name my child after his father? All this despite me REPEATEDLY saying that I agree that Cheryl has a right for Darwin to be named after her? SO I ONLY HAVE PRINCIPLES IF I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU and name my child after myself?
I have never once questioned your right to name your child after your husband if you so wish. This is clearly an imagined slight of yours, and I challenge you to find a quote of mine that calls for such action on your part.
I have said: "It is easy to comply with traditions, but with all due respect, if everyone thinks like you, you might just be some man's property right now, uneducated, with seven kids because your husband said so.
It was not a critique of you wanting perhaps to give your children your husbands name. That is against my principles and I fully believe that if you want to name your kids after their dad, your favourite boy band members, or that pony you once rode at a fair - you should be able to do it. It was a critique of the idea that people should avoid doing things that will cause unnecessary pain to those who still hold on to traditions when it wouldn't, in your opinion, "achieve much".
You reading that as "you are only principled if you name your child after yourself" was the offence you took.
c3rs3i: And how was I to know how fucking sensitive you would be about everything? You play HIGHLY OFFENSIVE; You bark about injustice and make yourself out to be this pillion of strength, standing against the tide but you can't take a little ACCIDENTAL bruising? Or even keep civil enough to ask for an apology?
I would never ask anyone to apologise to me. What a pointless, ridiculous thing to do. I would also never ask anyone to respect me or avoid offending me or any such nonsense.
Do you know what I’ve been consistently hearing from you? That because I’m apathetic about MY children taking MY name, I’m a purveyor of bigotry. I've tried to set the record straight in almost every comment here but you just REFUSE to see it.
Speaking of imagined slights...
There's no reason to shout at me for that and it's really really poorly done of you.
I'm not the one abusing the capslock here.
And NO. To continue from the previous analogy - YOU insist that I am gay and that I refuse to fight for myself in deference to my parents. YOU. NOT ME. I am telling you that if I were gay, I would fight. Of course, I would bloody fight, don't be stupid. BUT I AM NOT GAY. The very premise of all your beef with me is that YOU insist that I am gay and unprincipled and you REFUSE to listen when I tell you I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT. What... people don't have the right to be straight anymore?
Since I was the one who started the gay analogy, It behooves me to inform you that "being gay" here meant being a feminist or believing in equal rights between men and women - which I suppose you do. If you are already having a great life with your gay lover and are enjoying the same benefits that straights have - coming out to your old ma and pa is ultimately a pointless act that will achieve little beyond angering your parents and achieving the personal liberating satisfaction of being "out". Naming Darwin after my wife is, as I have said multiple times, a personal act (and like I said, the "target audience" is myself, my wife and my kid, with everyone else being secondary). I was merely rectifying what I believe is your misunderstanding of my analogy.
c3rs3i: [I don't deserve this abuse]
I suggest you reread from the very beginning. I'm not sure if you are aware of this but the only person who got defensive and then turned abusive was you.
Cheryl, KSW.
I did read it again. Which was when I decided a fit was warranted.
My general stance in a nutshell is and has always been to stand up for your principles. To whomever, even your parents. (But in doing so, one should be understanding, especially to one's parents, because they were raised on different principles.)
I never said to compromise on your principles (I'm all for sticking to them) - any challenge I made was just me trying to understand the details of it. As I said.
Everything's there in my quotes. Despite numerous attempts to rectify any misunderstanding, KSW persisted in his "you are just like the rest of them" accusation. I'm not fussed about that to be honest except I don't like being called unprincipled. Expecially not repeatedly, and after I've made explicit and considerable effort to say, repeatedly again, that our principles are the same.
KSW, The last comment is me being intentionally rude. Prickliness/barbedness, if any, were in retalition to your rudeness, which I thought unnecessary and unprovoked. Else, unintentional. You may disagree but I can only say so many times that I had no intention to offend/assume. If you won't believe me, it's your prerogative to continue perceiving them and playing misunderstood victim.
I've unsubscribed from follow-up comments. Naming Darwin has already been unnecessarily painful for you, that was never my intention, nor do I wish to further aggravate. Intentionally or not, it looks like I keep upsetting you, I'll leave you alone.
c3rs3i: KSW persisted in his "you are just like the rest of them" accusation.
I have done no such thing. Maybe you should take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror and think about all the things you said about me and see how they apply to you instead. I feel you might have been projecting.
I think my standard image is that of a grumpy troll who pounds away at his keyboard in self-righteousness and barely restrained bile - which is why I get so many people being so shocked when they meet me in real life for the first time. Maybe that is why you kept thinking that I am somehow being incredibly hostile to you - but everything you wrote barely increased my pulse.
This is not about you. Everything I say, sarky as they may sound, does not somehow translate to me calling you unprincipled. I stand by my previous challenge for you to find my quote which implied you are unprincipled - because I fear you might have gravely misunderstood me (my wife, as you can see, was just as bewildered as I am).
If you haven't already seen this: http://thehairpin.com/2014/07/what-happened-when-we-gave-our-daughter-my-last-name
Anyway, if it helps, this has definitely made me consider more deeply, the things we take for granted which might be sexist. I cannot promise that my child will bear its mother's surname, but I can promise that it will certainly be a topic of discussion with the mother.
I've told your story to several people, and comments have ranged from, "What a traitorous male bastard!" to "OK...you know weird people" Then again, these are the same people who insist I have no right in refusing to pencil in my race in government application forms so....
Thank you, all the best to Darwin and the family. He is ADORABLE!
Post a Comment