My first wife's name is Barbara (I always want to say "was" but, since she is still alive, it must be "is"). So, all our friends referred to us as "Barb and Doug". We had other friends whom we referred to by couple names, like "Dave and Nancy", "Rick and Carol", "Carol and Mario" (no, not the same "Carol").
After awhile, I noticed that these were couplenames and that there was a hierarchy to them. The dominant one of the couple would always be first. Maybe. Sometimes it seemed only that it was alphabetical.
I also noted that women often put the name of the friend first in a couplename.For example, my (now ex-) wife would say "Nancy and Dave" while I would use the opposite order. In most cases, however, the order would be the same regardless of the speaker.
And then I began to apply this to other couples. I have two older siblings, I always say I have a "sister and brother, both older." I don't know if that is because my sister is the eldest or because of the "ladies first" rule that was implanted in my head as a child.
Then there's the president and vice-president. "Obama-Biden", "Reagan-Bush", "Bush-Cheney", "Ike and Dick" (now, why do I think of Eisenhower and Nixon that particular way?). Even other politicians, like Reid and Pelosi (mostly in that order but not always).
How about Abbott and Costello when, clearly, Costello was the main one of that duo? Or Martin and Lewis? Or Rodgers and Hammerstein? Or Roy and Dale (Rogers and Evans)? Burns and Allen?
Why do we prioritize names in the way we do?
A Night Unremembered
13 years ago
12 comments:
Good question! We mix up Charlie and Vickie and make them Varley and Chickie sometimes.
hah, yes i've noticed it too! two people in my main group of friends were a couple for a few years, and the girls used to refer to them as "ruth and luke", and the guys would refer to them as "luke and ruth". i think generally the male takes precedent unless it's a close friend. or maybe it's all about the phonetics - like cellar door.
This is interesting. Look at the music industry as well and all the bands names.
I don't know Douglas, there are probably many factors, and there might even be poetry involved.
What is ugly is combination names like "Branjalina" or "Beniffer" or what ever I'm sick of that.
Does anybody call you and your wife "Barblas" or "Dougara?"
Sixty - Let's see it is "Faye and Doug" so that might be "Daye and Fugg"... hmmmm
Yolanda - the male is often the more outgoing in some circles while the female might be the more outgoing in others. I think group dynamics has a lot to do with this.
MPH - Yes, that might be another area. Hall and Oates, Sonny and Cher, Simon and Garfunkel, etc. I think Jonathan hit on the most likely influence... poetry; the flow of the words.
Jonathan - I agree about the ugliness of those two couplenames. Since Barbara is my ex, no one is calling us anything. See what I said to Sixty.
Interesting. If only couples could function as equal team members, making equal contributions, and taking equal responsibility for achieving societal goals. Instead, love and passion, at least in modern times, seem to interfere with the functional evolutionary determinant for pairing.
Log - It becomes very clear that you are not married. And a bit naive about relationships. :) Most successful ones, in my opinion, exchange dominant roles from time to time. Social functions may fall to one partner, while practical matters go to the other. And those may switch, depending on circumstances. What's important is that both agree on the roles taken or assigned.
Thanks Douglas, from my examination of history, there is no reason for couples to be together other than functional reasons. The manifestations which we observe today are relatively recent in origin and were designed for a different era.
Men and women have different skills, brains, tools, aptitudes, etc. for surviving in a complex world. If we simply focused on the functional reasons for being together, we'd avoid lots of problems associated with emotional wants and desires.
You're absolutely correct re shifting responsibilities and roles. However, in the post-modern western industrialized societies, there is arguably very little need for couples of any sort. One can hire outside vendors to perform any function you need, and we have modern technological equipment to address most back breaking labor-intensive tasks.
The key is pairing up people with different skills. We, as a society, need to start moving toward a new model to prepare for the complexities of tomorrow. Things are about to become very complex.
Log - Examination of history? How far back? Pairing up is as old as recorded history and likely much older. Granted, there is evidence of polygamy but I suspect that the average man paired with the average woman. But what you ended with bothers me greatly. Who is going to do the pairing of people for this new society? I don't like the sound of that.
Interesting. If only couples could function as equal team members, making equal contributions, and taking equal responsibility for achieving societal goals. Instead, love and passion, at least in modern times, seem to interfere with the functional evolutionary determinant for pairing.
Thanks Douglas, from my examination of history, there is no reason for couples to be together other than functional reasons. The manifestations which we observe today are relatively recent in origin and were designed for a different era.
Men and women have different skills, brains, tools, aptitudes, etc. for surviving in a complex world. If we simply focused on the functional reasons for being together, we'd avoid lots of problems associated with emotional wants and desires.
You're absolutely correct re shifting responsibilities and roles. However, in the post-modern western industrialized societies, there is arguably very little need for couples of any sort. One can hire outside vendors to perform any function you need, and we have modern technological equipment to address most back breaking labor-intensive tasks.
The key is pairing up people with different skills. We, as a society, need to start moving toward a new model to prepare for the complexities of tomorrow. Things are about to become very complex.
This is interesting. Look at the music industry as well and all the bands names.
Post a Comment