Comment on I never realized this
dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 days agohuh, that sounds like a rationalization, a way to find a problem with a critique that sounds more defensible or reasonable than defending patriarchy
Comment on I never realized this
dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 days agohuh, that sounds like a rationalization, a way to find a problem with a critique that sounds more defensible or reasonable than defending patriarchy
SuperApples@lemmy.world 3 days ago
My point is, by looking at one of the replies, that people might just be misunderstanding the argument being presented, as they have a different understanding of what ‘inherent’ means, and if you look up a dictionary definition, you can understand why.
For example: in “existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.”, the first two clauses are immutable, but third is mutable.
As last names are a social construct, their characteristics and usage can change over time. Just because they started as, or are predominately used as a tool of patriarchy, doesn’t mean that’s what they will be in the future. If you believe that something ‘inherent’ is an immutable trait, that you would disagree with the premise of the argument, but if you think it’s just a characteristic trait, then you would generally agree - if I change my last name to ‘Orange’ to signify my love of the fruit/colour, it is still a last name, but has nothing to do with patriarchy, proving that patriarchy is not an immutable trait of last names.
Personally, I think that both marriage and last names are predominately used as tools to enforce patriarchy historically and currently, but can imagine that changing in the future. But when I initially looked at the OP’s statement, I disagreed, because I understood ‘inherent’ to be an immutable trait.