Old Norse: hus “house” + bondi “householder, dweller, freeholder, peasant,” from buandi, prp. of bua “to dwell” The sense of “peasant farmer”

I think this in fact implies that the married man is the chief bonded worker of a woman head of the house. Sounds awefully matriarchal to me. Ahhh … the unfair life of being “house-bound” and stuck having to do all the maintenance and farming (animal husbandry).

I also am always troubled by folks who pretend like words don’t matter. I’m not sure what I think about “wife,” though many connotations in this society are awful, but I do appreciate your thoughtfulness about this word choice.

You must love the guy to marry him against nearly all feminist belief. So what and welcome to the real world.

Love him, cherish him and I wish you all the best.

Rather, selfish though it is, I am unhappy for myself. You see, I too love my partner ‘in a way that—despite societal evidence—burbles with the hope of lasting a lifetime?’. However, as a self-respecting feminist I feel that a public commitment to my sweetheart, what you have conceptualised as marriage, would be at best unnecessary, and at worst a noxious form of disrespect to the women I love.

So yes, it is satisfying that you have found happiness through your marriage. However, please remember that, whatever your justification and whatever your interpretations of the ramifications of your act to feminism as a whole, your decision to get married just makes mine and my partner’s ethical stand to resist the pressures to be married that little bit more oppressing.

What’s more selfish?

You may want to examine the etymology of the word “obey” before you pay a per-hour rate to a marriage counselor to obey you.

Good luck!

I think most of us think about this as “having a family,” and yes, having a loving family is more important than teaching and writing, for men or women.

When I introduce him, I say, “I’d like you to meet my third husband. The other two just wouldn’t mind me and I had to shoot them.”

I think maybe she could consider that her becoming a wife will change the definition of wife for her and for others, to include someone like her, not an appendage.

(Correct me if I am wrong, MA) but I got the sense from the “love, honor, & obey” passage that Professor Anderson was aiming for a little satirical pulse and build up, not explicitly negating her love for Gavin. The dissection of that phrase (obedience vs. love) is also borne out throughout the post, at least implicitly. Am I turning this too much into English class?

Regardless, have fun, Professor.

I’m all in favor of removing misogynistic terms from general use. However, I’m curious about what seems like a selective application of a rule I hadn’t considered before, and one which if applied even-handedly would result in disqualification of a good deal of the English language.

Do feminist ideals really require us to go back to Indo-European roots for every word in the dictionary (or other etymological roots, for words of non-European derivation), and refuse to use any words that have misogynistic roots? That just seems unworkable.

So if the suggestion is to strike _some_ words based on their Indo-European roots, how does one decide which words may be used despite misogynistic roots, and which may not?

And sometimes ideological purity must give way.

Exactly what it is giving way to, in this case, is not quite clear …

But it must give way nonetheless! Best wishes.

Having agonized over many of the same issues you (and Christine) grappled with, I also made the decision to marry but retain my own name. No big wedding, no white gown, no “obey.”

That was over 25 years ago, and I can still recall all the difficulties that such feminist notions produced back then, including a hospital administrator who wanted to see our marriage license (while I was in labor!) so that our child could have a hyphenated last name, and the federal government not crediting my income taxes properly every year for years because their forms had no way to indicate different last names for spouses. Christine probably also had many experiences like mine. Hopefully, you’ll encounter fewer obstacles as the practice of a woman not changing her name is now more common than it was back then.

As to terms like “wife” and “husband,” I quickly settled on something that still works for us:

When I introduce my husband to people, I simply say, “I’d like you to meet my first husband.”

And if people question the different last names, my answer is simply, “My husband and I are both feminists so I allowed him to keep his maiden name.”

IOW: we didn’t sweat what is ultimately the small stuff. It’s now 26 years later and we’re still laughing.

Cheers and best wishes,

Dissent

Simon: I’m intrigued that you and your partner *both* vowed to “obey” one other. I’m not quite sure how that mutual obedience thing works out if she wants to watch “Desperate Housewives” and you are jonesing for “American Idol,” but if you both manage to evince reciprocal submission, who am I to judge? For my part, obedience isn’t in my nature, so I wouldn’t vow it even if Gavin were willing.

Kaimi: Yes, that all-purpose “ghwibh-” (shame-pudenda) is indeed the ancient root of so many feminine words: “wife, hussy, midwife, woman.” For you, that fact means the term isn’t worth challenging. For me, linguistic misogyny inspires a search for gender-neutrality. Happily, in this case, a great substitute is near at hand. “Spouse” is apparently from the root “spend-” which suggests “to make an offering, perform a rite, hence to engage oneself by ritual act.” In abandoning “wife,” we have gained “spouse,” the partner to whom we make an offering of commitment.

MJ: I do support individual choice to marry (especially for gays and lesbians). For my life, however, all choices are not equal. My decision to teach and write is more important to me than my ability to land a man and manage a household.

Thanks for all your supportive and challenging thoughts, my friends and colleagues.

Your post made me think about some stuff. I posted about it here: http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2006/04/person_yes_pers.html

Thoughts and comments welcome.