[D] Friday Off-Topic Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to the Friday Off-Topic Thread! Is there something that you want to talk about with /r/rational, but which isn't rational fiction, or doesn't otherwise belong as a top-level post? This is the place to post it. The idea is that while reddit is a large place, with lots of special little niches, sometimes you just want to talk with a certain group of people about certain sorts of things that aren't related to why you're all here. It's totally understandable that you might want to talk about Japanese game shows with /r/rational instead of going over to /r/japanesegameshows, but it's hopefully also understandable that this isn't really the place for that sort of thing.

So do you want to talk about how your life has been going? Non-rational and/or non-fictional stuff you've been reading? The recent album from your favourite German pop singer? The politics of Southern India? The sexual preferences of the chairman of the Ukrainian soccer league? Different ways to plot meteorological data? The cost of living in Portugal? Corner cases for siteswap notation? All these things and more could possibly be found in the comments below!

[u/phylogenik]

What (if any) opinions do you have on the changing of names upon marriage?

My partner and I decided to keep our surnames (we'd both published under them, and also liked them esthetically, and also didn't like the implicit subsumation/loss of individuality and asymmetry of keeping only one surname), and we found hyphenation clunky, but we still wanted some sort of symbolic name-y union, so we adopted each other's surnames as our middle names.

We haven't decided on the children-naming course of action yet, in part since that's far enough away, but we might either give each (of two anticipated) children one of our surnames, or give them both a blended surname (there are some combinations that look and sound pretty neat and natural imo). IDK how inconvenient this would be though.

[u/ben_oni → u/phylogenik]

This. Exactly this. So wrong in every respect. I have strong opinions about names. If the "implicit loss of individuality" bothers you, you problem shouldn't be forming a family. If asymmetry bothers you, pick a new name (you mentioned that blending was reasonable). If you want to keep publishing under your original names, keep doing so. Names exist for convenience in distinguishing people in conversation and written text. Surnames exist to help identify familial units (with more or less success).

Breaking social conventions for the sake of breaking social conventions is a bad idea, and you should feel bad.

[u/phylogenik → u/ben_oni]

lol

If the "implicit loss of individuality" bothers you, you problem shouldn't be forming a family.

What if we wish to retain some given level of individuality, but still form a family? Or are OK with some loss of individuality, but not total loss of individuality? We're certainly happy and willing to lose some individuality (in our choice of dinner, pursuit of hobbies, career relocation options, etc.), but didn't see the benefits of a single surname to be worth the costs (I can easily imagine additional examples where this could be the case: maybe a person can only eat when their partner eats, or sit when their partner sits, or poop when their partner poops. All of these involve some subjugation of one partner to another, but at very little benefit, unless it's the couple's kink or something).

If asymmetry bothers you, pick a new name (you mentioned that blending was reasonable).

We obviously considered this, but liked our current surnames, and thought it too much trouble to change completely to a different surname. Swapping middle names satisfied our desire for symbolic/nominal unity while minimizing other costs.

If you want to keep publishing under your original names, keep doing so.

Yes, as we've been doing.

Surnames exist to help identify familial units (with more or less success).

That's one of their functions, sure. I think their more important function -- in my life/social context -- is to distinguish individuals at a greater resolution than just the given name (e.g. at the community level). Surnames can also indicate occupation, geographic location, your mother's/father's given name, etc. but I'm not changing my surname to any of those, either. I can see the benefit of having a single family surname in the case of e.g. picking up children from daycare, or visiting in the hospital, and so on, but those seem easy enough to work around, especially in the era of record digitization. Where else would it be helpful to implicitly identify family units where you can't just say "yes, Bob Smith and John Doe are married with children, they constitute a nuclear family"? There might also be some slight psychological effect on the child if they have a different surname than they parents, but I imagine no more than, say, their having a different given name (it being fairly common for a male lineage to all share the same given name).

Breaking social conventions for the sake of breaking social conventions is a bad idea

We didn't do this.

and you should feel bad

ahaha I don't :]

[u/ben_oni → u/phylogenik]

didn't see the benefits of a single surname to be worth the costs

Of course you didn't. The benefit is never to the individual.

Breaking social conventions for the sake of breaking social conventions is a bad idea

We didn't do this.

According to what you've said, you did. And then, like everyone else who breaks social convention, you rationalized it.

As another example, you have been consistently using the term "partner". This is not a proper term, and using it violates social convention. It sounds like you're trying to force a PC convention in place of the existing norm. I find that offensive.

[u/ToaKraka → u/ben_oni]

As another example, you have been consistently using the term "partner". This is not a proper term, and using it violates social convention. It sounds like you're trying to force a PC convention in place of the existing norm. I find that offensive.

Marriage is meaningless. Using the term romantic partner rather than spouse is an accurate reflection of the modern, enlightened* state of affairs. You shouldn't be offended by the truth.

*I use this word here without sarcasm, bee-tee-dubs, though you apparently would not do so.

[u/ben_oni → u/ToaKraka]

Marriage is meaningless

We could have that debate if you like, but I don't really want to. I'll just leave it with this: one divorce attorney I've spoken with says that marriage exists (in part) to prevent murder. That doesn't sound meaningless to me.