to think my children should have my name, not my husband's

[happiestblonde]

DP and I talking. He is usually a massive feminist, I'm a complete conservative but this seems pretty divisive.

When we get married I will probably keep my own name. He is fine with that. However, when we have DCs he expects them to have his. We cannot do double-barrelled which would be my first choice as our names together would be utterly ridiculous, but seeing as they will belong (for want of a better word) to both of us, and as I will be the one carrying the child, wrecking my body and going through child birth... why on earth should they have his surname!?!

I'm shocked that MN of all places should have such backward views on this issue.

"Why get married in the first place... YABU, they take the father's name in our society..."

Let's all pay hommage to the patriarchal society!

Happiestblonde, there is no reason on this earth why your DC should have your husband's surname and not your own. My children didn't when and I didn't take my husband's name upon marriage either.

Amazingly, we all survived, no-one got so terribly confused that anyone suffered, my children are not psychologically scarred (neither was my husband) and the world of marriage and child-rearing did not crumble as a result.

"I'm shocked that MN of all places should have such backward views on this issue. "

It (MN) doesn't. Some users on MN have what you consider to be a backward view. That's all.

A unit is not made by having the same name.

I thikn a lot of people on this thread are getting hung up on the archaic nature of it all.

The Op wants to give her children her name

The OP's DH wants to give their children his name.

Obviously a compromise of sorts has to be agreed - but why is the OP no being unreasonable for wanting it to be her name, but the DH is being unreasonable for wanting his name?

They both want the same thing (but from opposite sides of the fence)

Isn't there a feminism topic for this claptrap?

FWIW - I "took" my exH's name, and am keeping it even though we're not getting divorced (I will almost certainly change it again should I ever marry again in the future).

But quite frankly - I don't care what names you decide to give your children/give yourself - but I don't see how the DH is being unreasonable while the OP isn't

Baroque - are you not getting divorced? Or was that a typo?

oops MAJOR MAJOR typo

I am sat impatiently waiting for the letter through the court to say that things are rolling along nicely

Why dont' yo both change your name by deed pool before the wedding to the same name. Invent a surname perhaps with one syllable of yours and one of his - then problem sorted.

If the main point if marriage is the names, as some imply, why get married? You can just change your name. You don't even need to do it by deed poll, though it might make the administration easier.

YANBU at all

You're being unreasonable for the MY children MY name not HIS name distinction - like he's not part of the equation at all in this after the sperm part.

For what it's worth - at about the age of 10 I requested to change my name because I felt incredibly odd and not a part of the family over the different names thing - I NEEDED to belong to a family unit, not some "my name/your name" warzone.

YANBU but neither is he, you both want the same thing.

I kept my own name DH kept his name when we married DCs are all double-barrelled (my name first) this works well for us and hasn't caused any problems. Sometimes I get called Mrs DH sometime he gets called Mr Kendodd we don't mind though.

When I was pregnant with my first DC I told the midwife my plans regarding last names she said that she wished more people would give children the mothers name because it makes it so much easier to trace people. Also when/if couples split most of the time children stay with the mother and very often don't even see dad again so end up with the name of a stranger.

activate, are you joking?

YANBU. I kept my name when I married my DH, because while marriage makes us one unit it doesn't make us one person, and so IMO there is no need for us to share a name. Like OP< our names will not double-barrell and we couldn't combine them into a new name for all of us.

So, when we were TTC we agreed that if we had a girl she would have my surname with his as a second middle name, and with a boy it would be vice versa. Our DD therefore has my surname, and if we have any more the same rule will apply.

I don't think it is reasonable for either spouse to demand that only their surname is used, but as long as both parents are happy it doesn't matter to me whether people choose the husband's, wife's, dog's or vicar's surname.

" Also when/if couples split most of the time children stay with the mother and very often don't even see dad again so end up with the name of a stranger."

You could reverse that though and say that they do at least get to keep something of their sperm donor father.

My BF has 3 children from her first marriage, all 3 children are now adults, and despite the fact that their father is a cock have decided to keep their fathers surname as it's the only link they have left with him

YANBU. I don't understand the whole argument of "everybody does it, so you should too, even if you're not too keen". If you're not happy with it then you need to speak with dp until you reach a compromise you're both happy with. Just because other people do it doesn't mean you have to, and it's becoming more and more common to have alternatives now. There are far more important things to family life than sharing a name.
I do think YAB a bit U to say that being pregnant gives you greater say in your dc's lives though. They are his dc too so you need to come to a compromise you're both happy with.
My parents, and dp and I, followed the tradition of keeping our own 2nd names after marriage and giving dd's my 2nd name as theirs and dh's as their middle name and the other way around for ds. It means that both of the parents names are on the passport, and symbolically the dc are a combination of their parents.

Another thing the midwife said to me was children have a right to both parents names. Is the name really so bad double-barrelled?

And if it is, why don't you use one for a middle name and the other for a surname?

YABU

We gave DS my maiden name as his middle name. I felt it important to carry on my surname as it were.

When I got married I originally decided to keep my maiden name but after a while decided it wasn't that big a deal. It's easy to change to my husband's surname, I like us all being the "X family".

I realised my identity was not dependent on my maiden name so didn't matter that I changed it. Maybe that's because my first name is fairly unique and seemed to be more important.

YANBU re wanting the kids to have your name but YABU not to consider all the options on the table.

For example, you can give your child two surnames without double barrelling. i.e. not one as middle name, not joined together with a hyphen, but both listed separately in the surnames section of the birth certificate.

You can then use either or both as you wish.

I didn't change my name when we married and was determined that my surname would be reflected in some way in my children's names.

We have DDname Mysurname Hissurname on DD's birth certificate but only use DDName Mysurname in this country for nursery, doctor, library etc.. as its easier for British people to pronounce and spell.

The 'my' children bit was a freudian slip, not intentional. Of course they will be OUR children.

Re feminism: for me, this is not down to feminism as such or an effort to work against a patriarchal custom. I am well aware that 'my' name is my father's. It is more a personal view that my name has just as much value as my partner's and therefore I would like it to be given as much weighting as his. We really, truly cannot go double barreled (sp?) so it is widely concluded that the children will have his. I just think this is wrong. If they do have his I want it to be because we have talked it through and decided we both want that rather than because it just happens, as if his name is more important and our children 'belong' to him. He doesn't think that, I don't think that, so why not my name instead?

It's tricky. I would like them to all have the same name for ease but like igglybuff my name's quite unique and I really like it, I don't want it to go but I wouldn't want to have a different name to my children. Understandably, DP feels the same.

my husband , 3 dc and i share our surname, it is a combination of both of our names mixed together, we are a totally new family and have a new family name. I would NEVER have a different name to my dc but would also not be prepared to loose my own name and take dh's. seemed simple to us, inlaws were a bit cheesed of i susspect but hey ho!

oops misread that. My first name isn't that unusual but surname is so I want to keep it.

Your name has as much value as his, yes. But not more. so why not alternate? first child your name, second child his?