An account of below the line comments on Amal Almahuddin's name change
By Sara Mills_(cropped).jpg) |
| Amal Clooney |
Themes
This
issue of surname change generated a great number of below the line comments,
largely because Clooney stated that she would use her new surname at work,
whereas many professional women retain their own surname within the context of
work. The debates were fairly aggressive, particularly on the Guardian story,
where the issue of a woman’s right to choose was debated and became an attack
on feminists. Fraser (2009) has argued that feminism has split into feminism as
a social movement and feminism as discourse, with the latter having 'gone
rogue'. The feminist movement now is 'increasingly confronted with a strange shadowy version of itself, an uncanny
double that it can neither simply embrace nor wholly disavow' (Fraser, cited in
Carter, et al, 2015: 27). This is particularly true of this data where the
feminist slogan 'a woman’s right to choose' is used against feminists who
are questioning why Amalhuddin took Clooney’s surname. Here, rather than being an issue of patriarchy, taking
his surname is framed as a question of free choice.
Surname
change is a feminist issue
Some posts framed this as a feminist issue, however, saying
that it would be more newsworthy if men’s surname changes on marriage were
reported. One said: 'Victoria Coren is now
Victoria Coren Mitchell, but David is still just "Mitchell". Why?
This is a feminist issue'.
This
is a trivial issue
Others, however, commented that there were too many
articles about this issue and that it was not important. They accused her of turning into another Kim
Kardashian. One stated sarcastically: 'Please, please do keep us updated on
every trivial thing these incredibly brave people do'.
Mockery/humour
Some posters stated that she should change her first
name or that he should change his name to hers. There were some posts which stated
that they would use the name Clooney all of the time if they were married to
him. One post stated
they 'would like to live in a society where couples can choose a third party
name when they get married like "divisionator", "skelebomb' or "wheeled-deathmachine".' There were quite a number of mocking posts like this.
A
woman’s right to change her surname
The main focus of the below the line comments seemed
to be those who posed it as about a woman’s right to choose her surname
(viewing this as part of a feminist history, whilst at the same time attacking
feminists), and those who asked questions about whether that choice was in fact
feminist at all, in that it was a tradition. In the Guardian piece 'Amal Alamuddin took George Clooney's name? Oh please – put your torches
and pitchforks away', there was an indirect attack on feminists for bringing up
the issue of surname change. And one poster said: 'why would she not take his name? leave her in peace now to do her job
and get on with her life'. Posing this as an issue of
simple choice, one poster said 'I don't get why people would go nuts because
she took his last name. Surely the point is that it was her choice whether to
or not?' Another post said 'I thought
the business of naming was entirely a personal choice? And if it is somehow
'offensive' to keep referring to [Chelsea] Manning by a male name, why is it not
similarly offensive to fail to acknowledge the woman's right to change her
name?'. One post drew attention to gay
friends: 'I'm friends with a gay couple who recently married and they decided
that one of them would adopt the other's name purely because it was a much
nicer sounding name. No angst, no guilt'.
Other posts argued that the change of a surname should not be subject to
scrutiny: 'Some of the most successful women I know changed their name when
they married without, as far as I could tell, giving much thought at all to it.
I believe to them it is simply a practical matter. I guess that's the thing
about successful women (and people): they can make their own decisions and get
on with things without viewing everything in life as an attempt to victimise
them'.
Indirect attacks on feminists
Several posters took this as an opportunity to attack
feminists:
So much hate from feminists when women do things that they disagree with. Such bullying. People have the right to do what they wish, and you have no right to comment on it. The world is full of different people with different needs than the hard core feminists. The hatred spewed by feminist groups against women who live their lives in ways they disagree with is disgusting. A woman taking a man's name, or staying home to raise children, is not weak, subjugated or backward. Just as the feminists are, these women are well thought out and making decisions they should be respected for, regardless of what other think about it. Feminists need to stop the hate.'
Other posters defended a feminist position:
You do realise that by telling feminists (as if they're some homogeneous group) to focus their attention on "more important things" you're doing precisely the thing you're railing against: telling women what they should do. I'm quite entitled to see Amal Clooney's adoption of her husband's name as a really strange thing for an educated, "liberal, middle class" (your words), respected professional woman to do. It strikes me as a coy buying into of romance, a stroke to the male's ego. Given that full equality still doesn't exist, it would've been more interesting if you'd interrogated why women still feel the need to turn their husbands into protectors and themselves into damsels enfolded in their men's last names. Could it be that women are the final stumbling block to full equality, because they cannot let go of those final bastions of male privilege?
Another post stated: 'Yes funny that, what
an amazing array of choices that women have, and how most of them still seem to
choose the option invented for them by men'. To counter the notion that it is a
woman’s right to choose, another poster stated: 'I think the debate here
refers not to women's right to change their names, but to their tendency to
stick to the patriarchal status quo rather than asserting their individuality'.
Thus, overall, the issue of a celebrity woman changing her surname to that of her husband seemed to be viewed as fairly trivial. The debate in the below the line comments largely seemed to construct the issue in terms of 'a woman’s right to choose' (a feminist slogan) as being under threat from feminists.
Thus, overall, the issue of a celebrity woman changing her surname to that of her husband seemed to be viewed as fairly trivial. The debate in the below the line comments largely seemed to construct the issue in terms of 'a woman’s right to choose' (a feminist slogan) as being under threat from feminists.
We are considering these perspectives, and more, in our analysis of responses to our survey on surname choices following marriage. We'll report back with our findings when we have them!
Sources
Mail Online 15th October 2014
theguardian.com 14th October 2014
theguardian.com 15th
October 2014
Huffington Post 14th October 2014
References
Carter, C., Steiner L., McLaughlin L. (eds) 2015. The Routledge Companion to Media and Gender,
Routledge: London
No comments:
Post a Comment