To want baby to have my surname too

[Sashadublin]

I'm due my first baby mid- June. DH and I very excited. When we got married I kept my name, for a few reasons, including that I'm an only child with quite an unusual surname and it would effectively end with me if I didn't. No issue from DH at the time. We had discussed and agreed that baby would have both my and his surname. They work well together. Not going to hyphenate it, but have the two and when the child is older if she just wants to use DH's surname, that's fine. Realistically happy for my name to at least be on the child's birth cert, but school, everyday usage can just be DH's . However DH recently had conversation with his sister who said this was a terrible idea. If my name was in the baby's surname on the cert for ever more she would have to have both. Asked a solicitor who specialises in family law and he said that was absolute nonsense, and practical for passports etc.I told DH I would compromise and just have my name on the birth cert but for everything else the baby can go by his surname only. He said no there can't be any compromise, the baby simply can't have my surname as well as his on the birth cert; just his. I'm absolutely stunned. Their family has 3 sons, they already have 4 grandchildren with that surname. It's just me in my family. His family are very unhappy about my wish apparently. I just don't get it, I'm hardly demanding we only use my surname for the baby. Exhausted and surprised at my DH. He says it's just a name and I'm being silly

“I am not married and it would never have occurred to me that children would not have their fathers surname.“
Not sure that’s something to be proud of- what else do you simply accept unthinkingly?

You need to get out more, LeSquigh.

Until fathers do everything 50-50 for and with children and are just as likely to be the resident parent in case of divorce, mother's wishes should prevail.

Neither my husband or I would think for ONE second that our siblings opinions mattered in a situation like this. We'd have our arses handed to us if we tried to broach any issue in those terms.

I've kept my name, and my husband has agreed the same deal you did (partly because we travel a lot).

I agree with PP - this IS a good example of a hill to die on.

His sister can fuck right off, and he should have his tail between his legs for even suggesting her opinions matter, let alone trying to lay down the law.

SunshineCake you didnt have to wait until marriage to change it, like Bertand wrote. You could have changed it anytime, and as your father wasn't on the BC, you didnt have to wait until you were an adult either.

“I've kept my name, and my husband has agreed the same deal you did (partly because we travel a lot).”
But please with a hyphen.

BertrandRussell

Not proud of, just something that genuinely never occurred to me, it was a given that the fathers surname would be used.

In my sons year there are no children with their mothers surname. He is 8. Many of the parents aren’t married.

Look at Ancestry.com, in family trees I have never seen anyone with their mothers surname.

Of all the people I work with it hasn’t happened (so far).

I am not saying it’s wrong I am saying it is highly unusual.

So you know all of the family history of every child in your sons year?

I agree that without a hyphen first name always disappears. I pointed this out to DH (an act of generosity, as his name is first in DS's name so it would have been mine that became default) when he wanted it unhyphenated, and it was apparently a convincing argument.

@KatharinaRosalie until that attitude is lost fathers won’t see themselves as 50/50 partners either.

In my sons year there are no children with their mothers surname. He is 8. Many of the parents aren’t married.

These is actually a pretty recent trend. It is traditional for the children of unmarried parents to be given the mother's name. Going back centuries.

“ am not saying it’s wrong I am saying it is highly unusual.“

Mother’s last name alone is still unusual. Lots and lots of hyphens though. Have you not seen any of them?

As your DH believes it's "just a name" tell him that's good he thinks that as it means more to you so baby can have your name only.

SIL is being an interfering bat. She does not get a say. I'm glad to read that you're sticking to your guns.

until that attitude is lost fathers won’t see themselves as 50/50 partners either

Um how exactly does this logic work? Most kids DO get dad's name nowadays and it's seen as the default option, but I don't see much 50-50 parenting going on.

Dungeondragon15
I don't dispute the political and economic equality side of things.

What I'm disputing is that a woman can make an informed choice based on what is right for her and her family and other women get to dictate what is/isn't feminist, hence my examples of being a SAHP.

Based on the idea that a sub group of 'correct' feminists are the gatekeepers, the act of any woman staying at home for a period of time would be deemed as fundamentally unfeminist (because of historic social norms), even if the woman in question is in a much better position for making their choice for their family and have made a fully informed decision about their context and their security and their relationship and their finances. To deem that woman's choice un feminist smacks of 'but darling you just don't understand' and its patronising to women. It assumes that women are incapable of making that decision themselves.

Of course the assumption a woman will always make the sacrifices is unfeminist, societal pressure on women is unfeminist, but a woman who has thought it through and made the right choice for their family situation shouldn't be told by other women that they aren't making feminist choices. Otherwise there becomes a bizarre situation where one group of women appoint themselves as judge and jury on other women's actions.

He said no there can't be any compromise, the baby simply can't have my surname as well as his on the birth cert; just his.

You have a bigger problem than surnames, your DH thinks he's in charge. I would explain that you are going to use your surname only because that's what it will be after the divorce, unless he starts treating you like a partner.

(I tend to think hyphen is clearer too)

What I'm disputing is that a woman can make an informed choice based on what is right for her and her family and other women get to dictate what is/isn't feminist, hence my examples of being a SAHP.

If what a woman is doing is goes against equality for men and women then of course people (male or female) can say that it is not "feminist". They are not "dictating". They are just telling you it doesn't meant the definition.

meant meet

If what a woman is doing is goes against equality for men and women then of course people (male or female) can say that it is not "feminist". They are not "dictating". They are just telling you it doesn't meant the definition.
So I plan on splitting my maternity leave with DH. Does that count as feminist? What about women who want to exclusively breast feed for the whole year to take the whole year? Is that not feminist because they're a woman?

If I chose to go part time (not that I'm planning to) is that unfeminist because despite having a good job I can do and have security working 4 days a week with good pay and conditions it's still unfeminist because women have historically gone part time? What if (the most likely outcome although neither of us are planning it) DH went part time, that would presumably pass the test. In either situation it would be one half of a couple in professional jobs choosing to do what's right for the family, but if the woman does it she can be judged for being unfeminist in her decision.

DH is already looking at using his flexible working to sort nursery drop offs and will do most of them, I'm guessing that counts as a feminist decision, but if changed my hours around nursery drop offs then some self-appointed feminist judges would probably tell me my choice isn't feminist?

It's why judging women's individual actions as feminist or unfeminist without paying attention to the context of those actions is silly.

I think women who give up their own careers to be kept by some man and facilitate him earning high salaries and thereby also indirectly perpetuate the gender pay gap are acting in a far less feminist way than someone who simply changes her surname but I’d imagine there are plenty of so called feminists who’d tell me I’m wrong. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Not sure it's such a new thing to give a child the mother's surname.

A friend of my DD, who is now 35 years old and whose mother kept her surname on marriage was given both parents' surnames hyphenated.

She's known by that surname and it's caused her no difficulties whatever.

Your husband is being ridiculous OP and as for his sister's opinion, I'd be telling him where they can both stick that.

As has been said lots of feminists do unfeminist things from time to time. Taking your husband's name is unfeminist.

So I plan on splitting my maternity leave with DH. Does that count as feminist? What about women who want to exclusively breast feed for the whole year to take the whole year? Is that not feminist because they're a woman?

As I have said, I am not commenting on your specific situation. I am commenting on fact that feminism is political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes. It isn't about supporting womens choices whatever they do. As you keep going on about your situation how does staying at home for a year promote equality of the sexes?

YouBumder
On the whole I would agree. I also really dislike any social expectation that a woman is going to the one to give everything up. I also find it astounding how many women on MN sacrifice their financial stability to prop up their DP with zero legal protection.

But, would i tell my friend that she is unfeminist for staying at home and giving her barely minimum wage job up to be full time carer for her child with complex needs? Absolutely not. Her husband is the higher earner and they've made the right decision for their family.
Another family i know, Dad's dropped his career and chosen lower paid work to fit around the family. He'd had enough of travelling, missing out on milestones and his wife earns enough for them to be comfortable.

If people are making the best, informed decision (and informed is key) for their family circumstances then it's not for others to judge in my opinion.

STAND YOUR GROUND!

I wish I had insisted on my child having my surname. I kept my surname when I got married (because I fundamentally disagree with the woman having to give up her identity when she marries) but for some unknown reason I just rolled over and agreed for my child to take my husbands surname. I think I was just tired and couldn’t be bothered to have an argument about it. Instead we used my surname as a middle name which just isn’t the same.

Anyone who tells you “it’s just a name” should be happy enough to give up theirs if it’s so insignificant.