To think that children should always get their mother's last name?

[CaptSkippy]

Here me out.

99% of the burden of reproduction is on women. All the pain and discomfort that come with pregnancy and childbirth are for the woman alone. No man has to suffer physically in any way for a child to be born.

All he has to do is have an orgasm.

Therefore I think that the honor of passing on a family name should belong to women alone.

What do you think?

It is precisely because the woman usually raises the children in the event of a split that they should have the father's surname.
This is not about the parents, it's about the children.
Imagine a scenario where deadbeat dad buggers off and has no contact with his children he then has kids with another woman.
These half-siblings don't know each other, they meet and, having different surnames, don't realise they have same father. They have sex.
This of course could happen in reverse but as women tend to raise children anyway far less likely.
OP, this seems to be all about the mother, but you've got it wrong: it's about what is best for the children.
It's far better for the children to have father's surname as it establishes a clear link.

If my father had buggered off and become a deadbeat, I would feel humilated to have received his name.

Yes and that's valid but this is not about you personally this is about wider society.
And in any case, would it not be worse to fall in love with someone you don't even know is related to you until too late?
It's just simply better to have the father's surname. If it doesn't suit you change it - doesn't require a society wide change though.

That's not what you said. You said it's about the children. Either your argument is that it's in the best interest of the children or it is in the best interest of society. Which is it?

Furthermore, having the same name as someone else does not mean you are biologically related to them. People who change their name to their married partner's name are not related. And my own last name is so common that I frequently meet people with the same name that I am in no way related to.

Your argument to use the father's last name as a prevention against incest does not hold water.

Mine have my DH surname because they're biologically half of him
I also have my DH surname, although clearly I'm not biologically half of him.
It's up to the parents to choose.

It should be the mother's decision. She is the one who has carried the child and given birth to it.

Glazelightly is correct. Until recently unmarried women always gave their children their own surname. The demise of marriage has resulted in single women bringing up babies unsupported by absent fathers who, nevertheless get their surname on the birth certificate. I am strongly in favour of children sharing the same surname as the parent they live with and I am somewhat alarmed by this change. I did, however, take my husband's surname upon marriage and I like the fact that we all have one surname. His surname is now my surname and my children have my surname.

The current tradition is of Norman origin, which came about pretty much around the time that surnames came into existence. Another equivalent is the use of patronymics - where the surname changes with each generation (the dominant form of surname in many Scandinavian countries until recently).

I tried tracing my mother's mother's mother's family a while back (just out of interest because I knew my great great grandmother died young from breast cancer so we didn't know much about her - we still don't) I got back to mid-19th century Ireland before it fizzled out. My mother's maiden name takes us back to medieval Scotland. She was brought up in a part of Scotland where it was almost two-a-penny, so it was a neat fit for her. My husband's surname goes back to at least mid-16th century Holland - no surprises there as it is obviously Dutch. We live in England where any surname goes these days. I am not sure that our children would identify more strongly with the other surname options. We are all quite happy with the one we have. If you don't like the one that tradition throws at you then choose another. A friend changed his surname when he married because his wife is a teacher and he didn't want her to get ribbed for having a surname it is easy to make rude jokes about.

My kids have my dh surname, I would never have burdened them with mine 🤣

I think it’s right that it should be the default. But couples should be able to choose.

tbh traditionally it was the default but most mothers had changed their name.

but I get what you mean - it should be the mother’s family name not the father’s.

i didn’t give my kids my name even though I didn’t change it on marriage- can’t think why now! Now I’m divorced and have a different name which is a pita.

In this instance society/children are the same thing.
Anyway, going to leave this thread now, I really can't get that worked up about this thing which is obviously a bee in your bonnet (which is fair enough, things I care about you would not) but certainly not mine.
I don't really give a rat's bottom about this topic so I now bow out. Been on Internet too long to go down rabbit holes like this.

Just adding an observation that's all.

Oh I couldn't agree more. Everyone should be married before having a baby IMO. I don't care if that makes me old fashioned. I also think there's nothing wrong with the child(ren) having the man's name if the couple are married (OR the woman taking his name.)

People bang on about how angry it makes them that women take the man's surname, and 'why doesn't HE take HERS wah wah wah!!!' But the fact is, it's just never gonna happen. Women on here claim that they kept their surname on marriage and every woman in their social circle has done the same. But in the real world 99.5% of women take the husband's surname when they get married.

I know about a dozen young women between 22 and 32 who are well educated professionals, and feminists, and are very passionate about women's rights and who seemingly loathe the patriarchy. They have all spoken many times over the past 10 to 12 years about how wrong it is for a woman to have to change her surname on marriage to that of the husband's.

In the past five or six years seven of them have got married, and guess what..? they have all taken their husbands surname. One particular young lady I am related to, (who is 28 years old,) is getting married in October and has been very very positive over the past five or six years that she will never take her husbands surname on marriage. And now she's like .. 'well you know what, it will just make things a bit easier won't it especially if we have children.' After all of her ranting and bluster and damning every woman who took her husband's surname, (and saying they are patriarchy slaves,) she is taking her husband's surname LOL!!!!

All of these women as I say, are well educated professionals, and feminists, and young millennials who claim they loathe the patriarchy, and are very passionate about women's rights and women never been second to men, cetera et cetera, and how women should NEVER take the husband's surname. Yet here they are all taking the husbands surname.

At the end of the day it does make things much easier if you both have the same surname and your children have the same surname. That's a fact.

Some people have talked on here in the past about children taking the woman's surname even when the couple are married, but all that is going to result in every single time, is everybody you meet thinking your husband is not the father of your children. Absolutely 100%, people will think that.

So yeah like it or not, for the foreseeable future (and for a very long time to come,) women are going to continue to take the husband's surname on marriage.

Oh my fucking goodness. This has got to be the most batshit reason I've ever heard for giving a child a man's name.

Because half siblings accidentally having sex happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If only they'd have had some clue! Like they had the same name! God forbid a Smith ever bangs a Smith. THEY'RE BOUND TO BE HALF SIBLINGS.

I would have given the children my surname has my DH and I not been married.

No sorry its the long established tradition in Christian Britain to give the fathers name

So much this.

My name has been my name for 37 years. As a child my dad used to 'joke' that my brothers were more important than me/their name mattered more as it wouldn't always be mine. Well I've had it for 37 years, my brother only 34.
So does that make it more mine than his?

My DC were given their dads name. DS1 changed his when he was 17. DS2 is changing his as soon as he can. I'll probably change mine to match them. Does that technically mean I'll go from having my 'dads name' to having my 'sons name?'
Or are both names actually mine?

I think people should choose whatever name they wish for themselves and their children without judgement.

It was ultimately my choice to go through the pain and discomfort that comes with pregnancy and childbirth and I chose to go through it with my husband who continues to support me completely and plays an active role in our children's lives. DC1 was born before we got married and I had a patronising talking to from the registrar about not giving my baby DH's name. I found it quite rude tbh.

I was happy to change my name upon marriage, at the time I didn't feel hugely attached to my parents name although I have a soft spot for it now. Although my sister who still has it says that's because I've had 20 odd years to forget how annoying it is that nobody can spell it or pronounce it.