Posts by Nat
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Who else forgot to get married?, in reply to Bart Janssen,
And this is the bit I don’t get. Your family tree is a genetic legacy not a tree of names. It doesn’t matter what you are called you are still genetically related to your ancestors and decendants regardless of what they call each other. Theoretically my family name ends with my brother’s daughters but it certainly doesn’t end the genetic line.
Right, but when my daughter had to do this exercise for school the other day, when I looked at her tree, and she had the same surname as me and my mother, this felt right to me. (In the same way that if her tree had been swamped by her father's name, it would have felt less satisfactory to me, like she and I had lost something). I'm not saying everyone does or should feel this way, but to me this seems very equitable. (And nothing to do with genetics.)
-
Hard News: Who else forgot to get married?, in reply to Sacha,
Or a hitched warlock
wearing a chastity belt
-
Hard News: Who else forgot to get married?, in reply to Russell Brown,
Awesome. Because I have male friends called Nat, I had assumed you, also, were male. Hello!
Hello! I'm not sure too much of what I write on here depends on whether I'm male or female. Hope not anyway.
Nat(alie)
p.s. Deborah, I really hate being addressed as "Mrs" too. Not exactly sure why. It seems so 1950s or something...
-
Hard News: Who else forgot to get married?, in reply to izogi,
but she’s also concerned about either of us having issues being accepted as the parent of a child without having the same name. I wouldn’t know if this is actually a significant issue these days or not.
This is so not an issue. You have a passport, the kid has a passport, that's all that matters. In fact, the only administrative issues I've heard about recently are stories where someone (usually a woman) has changed their name, and the marriage certificate and passport are out of sync, and that has caused problems.
We're not married, and we gave one of our kids my surname and the other one his. I like the symmetry of this, and the fact that both names stay in the family tree for a bit. Can't ever imagine changing mine. As everyone is relating in this thread, there are many and varied reasons for all of these choices; it would be nice to see it balance out a bit gender-wise though.
-
and also frankly bemused by the spectacle of women adopting their husband’s surname (is this practice staging a comeback?).
Me too, and yes I think it is
From http://www.livescience.com/16813-women-husband.html:
Surname decisions are now a free choice, but statistics suggest that most couples still take the traditional road. A 2009 study published in the journal Social Behavior and Personality examined New York Times wedding announcements from 1971 to 2005, and found that the number of brides keeping their surname was about 1 percent in the 1980s, rising to 9 percent in the 1980s and 23 percent in the 1990s, before declining slightly to 18 percent in the 2000s. Brides with more education or a high-powered occupation were more likely to keep their names, as were older brides.
-
Hard News: Music: In before Christmas, in reply to Dave Patrick,
And it’s a valid question, the one about where does someone like Katie Thompson get public exposure – it’s a similar situation for Delaney Davidson, who’s last two albums have been in lots of “best of” end of year lists, but who could just as well not exist as far as radio or TV coverage goes.
Sad But True was the bFM album of the week a few week ago, and Charlotte Ryan had Marlon Williams on Morning Glory to talk about that album, which is a collaboration between him and Delaney Davison. Perhaps not the exposure you're quite thinking about but some at least...
-
We saw Brel last night. I was seduced by Julia Deans! I've seen Fur Patrol and The Adults but this was something else entirely. Her voice was like honey or wine or both.
-
+1 to that Jackie!
I first came across PA when Jolisa broke the Witi story. We bought the book for my mother in law for her birthday and attached Jolisa's blog post and the article from the Listener for extra homework :-) I love reading Busy Town; few and far between as the posts are, they are always gold. And I was lucky enough to run into Jolisa at a performance of Alice in Wonderland, which seems somehow appropriate.
And I've learnt so much from Emma! She has helped to open up and refine my views on a whole lot of things.
And of course, your own prolific and pointed articles Russell always keep me up to date with NZ media and politics and more.
And my friend Paul Williams and I often get a kick out of the fact that he a kiwi in Australia and me an aussie in New Zealand both hang out here.
So, what Jackie said really. A huge congrats for starting and keeping this thing going!
-
Hard News: Strange days for journalism, in reply to bronwyn,
The Monthly did a great profile on Gina Rinehart in last month's issue - it's now available online. Obviously it's before this recent spate of action, but is a great backgrounder on some the forces that have made her who she is.
And there's also this one from the Global Mail on Lang Hancock.
-
Hard News: Women and their representations, in reply to Emma Hart,
Sounds like you might enjoy cosmocking.
Ha! Great comments too.
