my instance doesn't show downvotes, so all I see is that you have lots of upvotes đ
I suspect downvotes would come from people who disagree that marriage is patriarchal, tbh - I think a lot of people don't really understand patriarchy or feminism, so they might thing you are being hyperbolic, like claiming marriage is akin to beating your wife or something.
Or they could just be responding merely to the language and not even the content, i.e. by talking about patriarchy at all or posing it in social terms they might think you have been duped by woke propaganda.
Whether it's an unpopular opinion just depends on what crowd you are in. I think a lot of people understand marriage is a patriarchal institution, that a patrilineal naming scheme is part of that patriarchy, etc., but I'm sure there are lots of people who think that is false, or over-stated, or who aren't entirely sure what ten-dollar words like "patrilineal" actually mean, lol.
yes, though I think a naming system like this isn't an individual act as much as occurs on the level of social norms and rules; a single individual won't introduce a competing matrilineal naming system just by convincing her children into it...
Either way, I somewhat agree with the criticism of the joke that the last name coming from a patrilineal origin isn't a gotcha, though maybe that's actually the point of the meme since Homelander is the one posing it as a gotcha (and he's a villain, so it would make sense to symbolize a misogynist with him). The name would still be inherited in a matrilineal way even if it started as a patrilineal name further up the chain.
I guess there is a question of whether the name's origin matters at all when we are concerned with the patriarchial nature of a practice where women lose their family names and men don't. That practice being disrupted is what matters, not what the actual name is.
It is a pain in the ass, a burden that is put on the woman. Men don't even have to consider changing their last name if they don't want to, (straight, married) women have to consider if they will betray expectations by not taking her husband's last name.
I think the point of the joke might be more that an attempt to start a matrilineal naming scheme is foiled somewhat from the fact that the maiden name of the mother is derived from her father, i.e. you can't escape that the last names all come from patrilineal sources for generations.
Thank you, I do think this was mentioned in the article I linked, and it does seem like Harry Potter is a good example of a mixed system. In my mind what makes it a soft system more fundamentally is how the author is inconsistent and the way magic is never really restricted by rules, even if there is a lot of focus on classes and how the spells are conjured, etc.
Hard Magic System: A type of magic that has specific rules that the reader understands and which limit a magic user in what they can do.
Soft Magic System: A type of magic thatâthough rules may apply to itâdoes not have specific limits that are expressed to or known by the reader or audience.
Basically how much readers are exposed to the mechanics of the magic system, and thus how realistic or constrained-to-reality the magic seems. Harry Potter and LotR are probably more in the soft magic category, whereas Brandon Sanderson's novels have good examples of hard magic.
right, but since representing Jewish people as lizards is an anti-Semitic trope, representing Zionists as lizards in this meme is an obvious blunder, assuming it wasn't intentionally trying to be anti-Semitic
My point is that your baseline for legitimacy and moral acceptability is based on the attitudes taken by the colonizers, then and now. It can feel pragmatic and reasonable, but I think it only seems like a defensible position because the "ex"-colonizers (I mean, the U.S. hasn't been decolonized, has it?) broadly agree that "colonialism is bad", though it does seem like strong support for Zionist Israel by colonial countries like the U.S. and UK is a clear counter-example to this.
Ultimately if you look closely and found Zionist occupation illegitimate, you will certainly think so of other occupations. The reasons you give for ignoring the illegitimacy of other occupations don't feel that different than those given for ignoring the illegitimacy of the Israeli occupation.
yes exactly - don't use an anti-Semitic trope when criticizing Zionism, lest you be confused for an anti-Semite; this weakens the meme significantly and for no good reason (other than maybe to pick up support from conspiracy nuts and right-wingers by using a dog-whistle while still being palatable to people who don't see the dog-whistle, but this is a bug rather than a feature in my book)
Did she say âyou people are nextâ in reference to the putting down of another insurance company CEO? Of course.
Right, so not what you said originally, which is that she meant something else and the sheriff who ordered her arrest was just jumping to conclusions, a conclusion you now agree with.
Anyway, I agree with you that it is an injustice that she was jailed, and I think we are all empathizing with her right now. We would all like the police to take more seriously dangerous stalkers and protecting people, and not serving as the militant arm of the 1%. Unfortunately, the police are an institution that historically have been put in place by the 1% to protect their interests, and there is a long-standing legal ruling that the police are not there to "protect and serve" (the common citizen).
huh, that sounds like a rationalization, a way to find a problem with a critique that sounds more defensible or reasonable than defending patriarchy