This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Naming conventions as class signifiers with implications for discussion of race, wealth, sexuality etc.
I had a form come across my desk today with a really bad name on it. Very stereotypically ghetto black, badly spelled, four middle names (one of which was “Mykween”). The name is too long for the name box on a federal form, so I had to file a supplemental sheet for it. Which got me thinking about why people name their kids stupid and stereotypical names, and what that means for the larger conversation about social divisions.
I live in a majority-minority city, I work with black people, we have lots of black customers etc. etc. There's more than one sort of black person, just as there is more than one sort of every group.
I look around my friend group and co-workers, not a one of them has a name like that. Eric, Dom (Dominic), Reggie (Reginald), Hezzie (Hezekiah), etc. Most of my black friends and co-workers have either very normal “white” names, or old fashioned/religious names. A few have african names, but that's because they're from Africa.
This is because the stereotypically “black” names are more specifically black underclass names. The working class' most serious social problem is distinguishing themselves from the underclass. So they name their kids very differently. And, in turn, if you see a black person with an african (or even better, fake african) name, a political portmanteau or a double-barreled last name, that's a middle- or upper-class thing. Hannah Nicole-Jones, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Edna Kane-Williams etc. We see similar patterns in other races, most Cletuses do not attend Harvard and the hyphenated last name is similarly an aspirational middle and upper class affectation. In addition, naming conventions change over time, so what is signalled by a name in one decade may signal something very different later. The name “Isis” dropped off pretty severely after about 2014.
This all brings to mind Scott's parable of the colored togas.
Hyphenated last names (maiden and husband's) were in fashion among upper-middle-class white women in the eighties. It does seem that only black women do this nowadays. I don't know why this fell out of favor among whites.
It seems more common in the UK (yes, there are ancient double or even triple barrelled names in the aristocracy, but the majority are recent maiden + husband ones), but the practice has now started to acquire a reputation as a bit trashy or performatively trying to appear of a higher class than you are (Hyacinth Bucket style), which is the biggest faux pas in English society.
I don't think it's primarily that though, it's that in the 1980s, when keeping one's maiden name as a woman was very radical and uncommon (in the Anglo world), the hyphenated name served as a sign of feminism while also making a concession to social mores, making sure you had the same last name as your children etc. So the man would be Mr Smith, his children would be Jane and John Smith, but his wife (and their mother) would be Mrs Miller-Smith, or something. Enough for the school teacher or the airport check in official not to raise their eyebrow or cause problems. If the mother worked, it also made things easier there, of course, so this practice was common in some upper-middle class professions like medicine or law.
Today, a combination of mass immigration (often from cultures with different family name practices) and advancing feminism means the 'middle ground' of the hyphenated name is no longer necessary for women. They can keep their original name and everyone knows what they mean. The kids usually still get the father's name, but this is less of an issue for mothers now that high divorce rates have been a thing for 30+ years and single motherhood is more common.
I think this is correct.
We are at the stage now where people named in the eighties are prime age adults, but I don't see the hyphenation as much anymore. I can tell you from growing up next to an Indiana trailer park in the eighties, hyphenated last names were for queers (in context, presumably, trend-chasing middle class strivers).
Yeah, I do still see it for some gay couples who have kids (because there's more of a debate about whose name the kids get). In general it's rare for children to get marital hyphenated names, I know a couple but it's often where the mother comes from a reputable family (like I know of a hyphenated maternal Rothschild, for example) or where the family are ultra-progressive. I've heard of cases where daughters get mom's name and sons get dad's too, there are more weird combinations today. But I think the paternal surname for children is still something that even most progressive men insist upon, and most women are willing to accept it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link