AIBU not to want child to have his surname?

[Jess499427]

Hi all

I am pregnant with my first baby, due in June. Me and DH are married but I didn’t take his surname. There were a few reasons (practicality/effort of changing my name, I quite like my name, and I’ve had it my whole life so would feel strange to change it), but the main reason was that DH’s surname is very unusual and when hearing it for the first time, people often laugh.

We have discussed baby names but have got stuck on the surname. DH is keen for baby to have his surname and I am keen for her NOT to have his surname. I feel like it’s unfair to inflict the name (it is quite awful, it’s hard to describe without actually saying what it is) on a brand new person! I have suggested that she could have my name, we could choose a new name, we could all have a new name... but he is adamant.

AIBU? We are both being quite stubborn. Should I give in? One of us will have to!

we're so special our feelings should be considered
Yes, God forbid half of the population should be considered.

As for not caring about what others think, sure, everyone does to an extent. But there is no shame in being a single parent or having others think that they are.

The fact its sexism is just feminist BS.

adrienne, I'd be embarrassed that people thought my child was the parent of someone who seems to get her ideas from 1950.

Frogstaring I have no doubt you're in a loving relationship in which you share many parts of eachothers life however you are not committed by definition. A commitment involves making a pledge or a promise that restricts ones freedom of action (i.e a marriage). The fact you have kids together is not a commitment. Either of you could leave tomorrow with no restriction of freedom or actions (consequence of law or legallity) to finances, possesions or any other involvement should anything unforseen arise. Thats not suggesting thats likely to happen and I understand when you say its a loving serious relationship, I'm merely disputing your terms that its a commited one in that neither of you are commited to one another, at least in a sense that holds any value outside your own individual subjective feelings.

we're all bothered what other people think

Of course, but I think it's very interesting that you think people would feel sorry for your children about something that a) most people wouldn't feel sorry for a child with unmarried parents and b) that isn't even true.

Do you feel sorry for children with unmarried parents?

FFS don't tell her about all the cultures where women keep their own names on marriage and have lower rates of relationship breakdown than we do reallybadidea. Her circuits will overload. Does not compute!

Am shocked at so many posters insisting that a child has to have the father’s surname. Why? How come that in 2019, people still peddle this patriarchal stuff. The father can keep his daft name but why should his surname trump that of the mother, regardless to whether it sounds odd or not.

@BertrandRussell just to point out that I'm "churchgoing" as you call it, and pretty involved in the church too but I completely disagree with adriennes stance. So would the vast majority of people in the UK church under the age of 75 (And above that it's generational difference not religion). Please don't imply all Christians are misogynistic, it simply isn't true in this day and age - it's just the minority who are get more airtime.

adrienne, I'd be embarrassed that people thought my child was the parent of someone who seems to get her ideas from 1950.

Isnt it wonderful we live in such a free society then to think as we please.

Its a shame that people feel that a sense of morality and responsibility owing to traditional values as being somehow bad though. I just dont like how entitled certain groups seem to feel and can see the effects are having of an over entitled society that constantly victimise themselves as being so badly off and the fault of the privelaged, or men, or marriage or bullys or whatever.

Why would you feel shame being a single mum? I never suggested you should be shameful of it. What I said is I wouldn't want people thinking my kids came from a broken home. That's for the simple fact there would be no truth to it as it is not the case.

That's for the simple fact there would be no truth to it as it is not the case.

Really? That's a strange reason to feel upset about something IMO, especially if that mistaken fact is completely neutral.

For instance, if you said that you feel sorry for my children because they have blonde hair, then it wouldn't bother me at all because there's nothing wrong with having blonde hair. The fact that it's untrue is neither here nor there because there's nothing wrong with having blonde hair.

Of course, but I think it's very interesting that you think people would feel sorry for your children about something that a) most people wouldn't feel sorry for a child with unmarried parents and b) that isn't even true.

I clearly stated that for whatever reasons people may think it, please dont confuse this with my own views when its not what ive stated.

Nor do I believe christians are misogynistic. In general its modern feminism as a movement I dont have a problem with not women in general if thats even possible. I believe the modern feminist movement is bigoted and fascist and a general victim culture that makes me embarrassed to be female yes. But whats so wrong with saying woman give birth to the child who takes on the fathers name. If its now sexist to make distinctions between male and female besed on a tradition thats brought no evil then god help us all.

I clearly stated that for whatever reasons people may think it, please dont confuse this with my own views when its not what ive stated.

I'm not clear at all about what you're saying in this post actually.

Its a shame that people feel that a sense of morality and responsibility owing to traditional values as being somehow bad though.

What’s moral or responsible about taking a man’s name or giving only that name to a child? It’s fairly morally neutral.

What isn’t moral or responsible is expecting a man to be responsible for and provide for you simply because he’s male and you’re female. That strikes me as profoundly immoral and selfish, tbh.

*What’s moral or responsible about taking a man’s name or giving only that name to a child? It’s fairly morally neutral.

What isn’t moral or responsible is expecting a man to be responsible for and provide for you simply because he’s male and you’re female. That strikes me as profoundly immoral and selfish, tbh.*
Completely agree.

but as a tradition thats usually been passed down over hundreds of years why would anyone want to stick a spanner in the works and interfere with what is clearly a passed down family name and age old identity of the child formed by tradition.

Tell me, what was the status of women within marriage during those centuries?

Really? That's a strange reason to feel upset about something IMO, especially if that mistaken fact is completely neutral.

For instance, if you said that you feel sorry for my children because they have blonde hair, then it wouldn't bother me at all because there's nothing wrong with having blonde hair. The fact that it's untrue is neither here nor there because there's nothing wrong with having blonde hair.*

I didn't say it was completely neutral either, I'm biased in that I believe children should be products of marriage as that is its purpose in society. Being strongly aligned with these values you would surely expect me not to want the outwardly image that I am infact not what I stand for and believe in. That would be hypocrisy right? That is completely different from me saying other people should be ashamed of their beliefs or the way they chose to live. That is their choice just as my choice is my own.

I haven’t read the thread but just wanted to chime in that I know a Willie Shufflebottom.Why oh why did his parents name him that?!

I believe children should be products of marriage

Why do you believe that?

*but as a tradition thats usually been passed down over hundreds of years why would anyone want to stick a spanner in the works and interfere with what is clearly a passed down family name and age old identity of the child formed by tradition.

Tell me, what was the status of women within marriage during those centuries?*

Wives as they are today. are you saying that somehow the ageold tradition of family names should be stopped because women had less rights as they do now? I'm not sure where you're going or why the two have much relation. Infact I think its a good thing that much has changed throughout history why is a good reason to hang onto long held traditions that are timeless

I'm biased in that I believe children should be products of marriage as that is its purpose in society
Genuinely curious (for a discussion, not an argument), why do you think that?

Its a shame that people feel that a sense of morality and responsibility owing to traditional values as being somehow bad though. I just dont like how entitled certain groups seem to feel and can see the effects are having of an over entitled society that constantly victimise themselves as being so badly off and the fault of the privelaged, or men, or marriage or bullys or whatever.

Why would you feel shame being a single mum? I never suggested you should be shameful of it. What I said is I wouldn't want people thinking my kids came from a broken home. That's for the simple fact there would be no truth to it as it is not the case.

What a very confused post. I am a married mother of a young child, whose father is my husband, and who has both our names, because this isn't 1847 any more. However, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with someone assuming I was a single parent if they were small-minded and sexist enough to assume that married women inevitably discard their birth names as some kind of badge of honour .

However, your obsession with marriage as bestowing some form of elevated moral status, your lengthy telling-off of Frogstaring for having been under the delusion that she and her longterm partner were in committed relationship, and your horror that anyone might think your child came from horror! a broken home, suggest some terrible inner insecurity.

Is being married the only thing you feel you can give your child, and that's why giving them their father's surname is such a crazy big deal for you?

Infact I think its a good thing that much has changed throughout history why is a good reason to hang onto long held traditions that are timeless

Sorry, can you explain a bit more? I don't understand the point you're making here.

Wives as they are today. are you saying that somehow the ageold tradition of family names should be stopped because women had less rights as they do now?

I’m saying that saying that name changing is good and positive because it is traditional and has been around for centuries is a deeply misguided argument, given how many of the ‘traditions’ and centuries-old practices around marriage made women second class citizens. Name changing emerged relatively late in the institution of marriage as was directly related to the ownership of women.

Infact I think its a good thing that much has changed throughout history why is a good reason to hang onto long held traditions that are timeless

Why? And why timeless? If marriage is a partnership, why is there a thing that only women may be asked to do? That seems the opposite of ‘timeless’ to me - it emerged relatively late in the history of marriage, and only in some places, and is out of step with contemporary morals around equality of men and women.

really

Is it perhaps that adrienne thinks we should all take our husbands' name and give them to our children, and be given away in virginal white by our fathers and not have sex until our wedding night (because that'll solve the problem of Children Out of Wedlock) purely because we're no longer legal chattels, and can vote, work and own our own property and stuff, so it's, like fun to pretend that the old ways are still around?

So, taking your husband's name even though you still exist as a legal entity is a cute way of comemmorating when married women were legally their husbands?

Or something. It doesn't

... make a lot of sense to me.

Why do you believe that?

because its a fact that kids do better in married households than with single parents. by this I mean kids who grow up without fathers statistically grow up having higher tendencies to criminality, more prone to depression, to practice promiscuous behaviour, and have a higher suicide rate to list some of the facts. I believe based on evidence that a married couple are needed to model their their children and provide positive role models of behaviour to teach boys how to be good men and how to treat women and to teach girls how to be positive women to better themselves and hopefully marry better men.

There is proof that woman (and men) are happier and more secure both emotionally and financially in a married monoagamous relationship and as kids usually grow up and base their lives based on the way they learnt from their upbringers it is the best chance they have to suceed and become productive successful members of society.

There will be lots of people who disagree with this but it will be disagreeing based on the fact that they dont like it not due to the fact it isn't true.
That doesn't mean every child brought up outside a marriage will fail, thats not true. But it does give them the best chance and are my reasons in a tiny nutshell without going into detail of why I choose to raise my kids the way Ive chosen.