Collegiate Times

Recently I have had a series of discussions with various friends and family who find some of my more liberal social views to be a little unusual, bordering perhaps on the dreaded F-word: feminism.

Yeah. I said it. I’m proud, too. Perhaps I should wear a breast cancer ribbon and join an all-women commune. Sadly, many of those types of feminists are more interested in a female utopia where men are caged sperm donors — that’s not really my style.

I follow more of a classical liberal approach, trying instead to focus more on women as individuals, with equal rights to any other individual. Perhaps then the word “feminist” isn’t something I should identify with, as the word seems to have collectivist connotations. Wherever collectivism rears its head, there is sure to be a group of individuals united with brains turned off.

I’m getting to the ripe young age where my friends are starting to get married, and discussions are beginning as to how I as a libertarian feel about marriage in general.

It’s no secret that most of us classical liberal types despise the idea of a marriage license, but apparently I espoused an idea that even my liberally-minded friends found to be strange: I wouldn’t want my wife to take my name, and I’d also like us both to have our own careers and even our own finances.

Mrs. Chad Van Alstin. That doesn’t sound like a really pretty name for my wife. It also doesn’t come off as very respectful. Like it or not, women took the name of their male spouses for one reason only: Our culture has been male dominated throughout Western history.

I’m not going to argue that it is somehow unethical for a woman to take her husband’s name if she truly wishes. However, the idea just doesn’t sit well for me if I were to get married. I very much would like my wife to keep her own identity; anything less would make me feel as though I was somehow claiming her as personal property.

It’s as if her family name and lineage are somehow inferior to mine, and thus she is adopted into my lineage as an extension of myself. This, of course, is all because of her gender.

I don’t like the idea of that. In reality, that’s very much the reason that this Western tradition of women taking their husband’s names evolved into being.

The concept of separate finances and careers seemed to bother my good friends the most. The argument was made that separate careers is fine, so long as there are no kids involved. Again, the argument in this case is that the family unit and its survival rest solely upon members of a family accepting specific roles. I just don’t think the traditional roles are set in an ethical manner.

My reasoning for espousing my opposing viewpoint is simple: All people should have their own focus in life that doesn’t simply involve their family and their significant other. A person having their own career and their own goals seems completely healthy and is a recipe for a life of satisfaction.

This idea that somehow women should sit at home and be dedicated to their children is simply unhealthy to me. Women have great value that needs to be added to our culture and our workforce. Encouraging women to view their role as a caretaker of the house is an absolute detriment to everyone.

I’m sure most people would agree that relationships are ideally supposed to be a partnership where both parties in a relationship have mutual gain by being with the other.

Continue Reading: 12 Next »