to not want our daughter to have the surname 'Perfect'?

[Brooks10]

Our daughter is due any day. We have decided on her first name, but are struggling with the surname. We are not married. He wants his surname (which I actually don't mind, as in don't mind her having just his surname) but his surname is Perfect. It's not unreasonable to think that's not a great surname is it?? He thinks it's a great surname to have, so which is it?? A bad or good surname to have? I think it's really bad tbh. Mind you, it doesn't sound that great hyphenated either, does it?

DS has my maiden name and I took my husband's name. It causes just as much confusion at school as it would if I had given him DH's name and then not married him. When they refer to me as Mrs MaidenName I always think they mean my mum. DS can choose to change it if he wants but he's reached 16 already and shows no interest in changing, apart from when we went to the States and they were funny with us because of his name being different.

Absolutely! I have no issue with people being married. No issue at all. We all have our own opinions and choices. I don't mind what people do, but it's when I was being told that I'm being unrealistic, etc. that bothered me, as I'm fully aware of how we have decided to legally protect the pair of us/future children.

I am coming around to the idea of just Mayfield, but DP would like Perfect-Mayfield or Mayfield-Perfect, both sound a bit odd, but will need to compromise

Mayfield is a lovely surname. Perfect is terrible.

Mayfield Perfect is lovely, better than Perfect -Mayfield. I wouldn't go with Perfect alone as, no doubt, your dd will be called Little Miss Perfect somewhere along the line. I'm still grateful my DH didn't take his Stepdad's name or I'd have had to stick with my maiden name, which I was happy to ditch.

Youre nuts, I know a family of Perfects & they rock it

If you both maintain your careers equally, marriage won't make much difference to financial security, but it is surprisingly rare for people to actually do that. Even 6 months maternity leave provides a hit to life long earnings and research has shown that employers are less likely to offer interviews to equally qualified mothers compared to fathers and offer them less money on average if they offer a job. So there are reasons to think it's an uphill struggle for mothers to maintain their financial power.

Still, maintaining your career reasonably, compared to being a SAHM or down grading to a job that fits around school hours, will provide more protection than marriage without maintaining a career. There's nothing unrealistic about wanting to have children without getting married.

I've been thinking about this and I've decided that I absolutely LOVE the name Mayfield-Perfect. It a brilliant name. If you give her this name she will be able to use it how she wants.

Batteries and BitOutOfPractice: why do sneery and dismissive of the OP's approach?

Why not look positively at other ways for people / women to build a secure future?

And you need to understand the full
Legal implications before choosing marriage , too. If I was a woman with a hard earned, hard saved for asset like my own house before marriage to a lower earning man and a stint as a SAHM I would think twice about marriage that could see half my house given to him on a split.

Ask questions about the will / tenants in common / other agreements that the OP may have in place? Consider that legal advice might be cheaper than even a medium sized wedding?

How will things ever get more equal if we just accept the whole SAHM / maternity leave victim mentality? The father of my DC and I did fully equal childcare, in terms of reducing contract to 4 days each, sharing sick days, sharing birthday parties etc. Both supported and continued our careers, he made a stand in his workplace.

It won't suit everyone, won't be possible for everyone, won't be everyone's choice, but sneering at other women's pursuit of a newer model is reductive, and depressing to see.

Perfect-Mayfield.

Sorted.

I don't think I was sneery. I started off talking to another pp and very much couched my posts in generalities after talking about my specific situation. My comment about her having legal advice wasn't a dig. It's just something that would have been totally outside my sphere when I got married, and I suspect that is true for many others.

The bit I was skeptical about was continuing to pay equal amounts into joint accounts over the course of a relationship. I know quite a few couples who earned similar when they first got together - none of them earn the same now. Whether it's the man or the woman earning more, in my experience earning power always ends up unequal. I don't know how much of an arse it is to protect the lower earner over time, who inevitably takes on more childcare. Regular review of the situation and advice taken I guess? Sounds expensive. But I wouldn't know.

I feel like quite a lot has been read into my comments by various pp that I didn't say / didn't intend.

I think Mayfield Perfect is gorgeous

Batteries: fair enough if not intended. Your post "Great. You've got access to free / easily accessible legal advice." sounded a bit 'ooh, bully for you", and BitOut's "It's not just a joint account at stake...house, pensions, etc etc

But OK, you've got yourself completely covered" sounded patronising and 'yeah right, if you say so' to me.

If none of I was intended that way, so much the better.

Tell me you aren't having a baby with MR perfect?

Oh gosh that's such a cool last name!

I love the perfect-mayfield name.