Wednesday, 5 September 2007

The Age Online 5 Sept - Annoying sarcastic writer!

Dear all,

It would be nice if there was the capability to leave comments on particular articles that aren’t a part of the ‘Blog’ section.

Today I read an article by Catherine Devery titled “Why do some wives still change their names?”. After reading the article I felt like giving Catherine a few pointers as to ‘why’, but found myself lost for a place to post these pointers.

So here goes….

Dear Catherine,

Thank you firstly for pushing your ideals and beliefs on everyone else through your commentaries like some unwanted religion. Although I don’t believe that wive ‘must’ change there names I think that it does make things a little easier in the future. Let me give you an example as I’m sure you are currently about to delete this email as I’m not sure you take advise well.

The logical reason why it is still within the realms of sanity to change names at marriage is for the children that usually follow in the future. Firstly the issue of what last name to give your children is the first hurdle. Under the regular system that 90% of the public use, the child/children are named after their father. Simple. Under your devised system, firstly there would be bickering as to the last name of the 1st child followed by further bickering as more children are born. Your solution I would assume would be to take on both parent’s last names in a hyphenated way. Like Micheal Devery-Davidson for example if we were to have children together (trust me this is a hypothetical as you’re not my type, and visa versa).

Although Michael Devery-Davidson is a great name (maybe a little long if a middle name were added, but non the less). Of course there would be more bickering as to whose last name is first and whose was second. Now this form of name naming is fine for first generation kids, but it becomes a concern down the track (as I’m sure as a mother you would also push your narrow beliefs on your children as well).

Let’s go to the next generation assuming hypothetical Michael didn’t become a life long bachelor, seeking to rid the world of capitalism and poverty. Michael weds Kate Smith with the same feelings and beliefs and they have a child Joan. Joan then would take on the name Joan Devery-Davidson-Smith, and adding a middle name would now mean that Joan would need the bank to design a wider credit card to accommodate her ridiculous surname.

Let’s now just flow forward a couple of generations, when you and I have long been divorced are pushing up daisies. We now have created relatives with names like Jeffery Devery-Davidson-Smith-Bond-Gatting-Everitt-Samuels-Jackson-Laycock….You get my drift.

So next time you think wives change there names solely because they are weak or there husbands are chauvinistic pigs, think again, look outside your tiny square that you call reality, and be at peace that it will continue for a long time.



The Hulk said...

Yeah, pretty good. I like it. Several punctuation and grammatical errors let you down though.
Nevertheless acceptable given the fact you are paying out a narrow minded women's liberationist who probably think all men are pigs.

*** (three star effort)

Dikkii said...

Agree that was a fine effort. I'll give it three stars too.

Party on - I might have a couple of doozies up my sleeve for when I get back.