Why are so many kids STILL taking the father's name?

[LefthandRight]

Is this some kind of feminist blind spot? Most kids still get the dads name and I see women saying "it was just easier", "double barrelling was a mouthful", "I don't mind". You even get situations where the mum has not taken the father's name so she has a different name to her kids but "it's no big deal" and it's like... So it's no big deal for the woman but apparently its a huge big deal for the man?

It really makes me angry because I just can't believe women have to go through the effort and intrusiveness/pain of childbirth only to have that ownership "label" whipped off them, it feels unfair

Women keeping their names and their children taking their names would make the names matrilineal. Everything evolves.

Her name is her father’s, his father’s, and his father’s etc. It doesn’t belong to her, but to a historical male line.

If you do what you’ve always done then nothing changes.

I preferred that his was less unique, but as long as we are both happy with our choice that's what matters. 😃

So names all belong to men but not women.?

No, the point of feminism is equality. In this context if things were truly equal very probably 50% of children would have their father's surname and 50% the mothers name.

No it wouldn’t make the name matrilineal it would make it a patrilineal name that had been adopted by the maternal line.

The patrilineal aspect of names is clear in the very spelling - Peterson, Hutchinson - ie - son of - clearer in Scandinavian names, or in trade names - Mason, Chandler, Baker - named after the father’s trade.

In Ireland, for eg, O & Mac/Mc represent son or grandson of; Ni or Nic - daughter of - so you get a distinction indicating the gender, but the surname will still be the father’s name. O’Malley, O’Hara for example. See also Ivanovitch/ Ivanovna etc.

Every option has a consequence, intended or not.
I would be fine with girls take mother's name, boys take father's, but the consequence could be that the family unit is not as equally recognisable because of different names etc.
There is no easy way to carry on a name without actually physically combining both names into one, but again the consequence would be that it would be more difficult to track records of people and relatives in this way and would make a whole mismash of odd sounding names, difficult to hear or understand.

It's not an important issue for me to be honest . I think the fact that the OP purposefully changed her surname from the one she was given at birth is the reason she finds this an issue. If everyone invented some random name then they would lose meaning and a number or code would be just as valid.

Seriously what a thing to argue about. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the woman’s or man’s name. It’s a family unit. Women can decide with their partner which name they want to choose for their children. I am not sure women bullying other women on the internet is ‘feminism’ . Just do what is right for your family and bugger nasty people with their shouty opinions.

Sure, so women are free to change their surname by deed poll and pass it to their kids. That’s the way to break the patronymic.

What makes you think they don't want to keep the surname they were born with? It's much easier to not have to alter your name on everything. If changing surnames is so desirable why don't people just do it by deed poll anyway?

I don't understand the 20th century philosophy comment. Do you think all 20th century philosophy is mistaken, and all modern views correct?

Not always. From reading online, the last name Helguson, for instance, means “son of Helga,” referring to a mother’s first name.

Many signified a profession (such as Potter) or place of residence (such as Hilton, short for “hill town”).

My kids have my surname not their dads and I had to argue for this in the registry office 😂😂. I don’t know why it’s just assumed that kids should take their dad’s surname if unmarried. Luckily for me the registrar actually said to my partner, if you get married you can change their names to yours as the birth certificates would need updating then anyway. As it goes, we’ve been together 11 years and still unmarried so I’m happy they have my surname id feel weird then having a different surname to me

I hated my surname so I was happy for myself to take his and our children, too.

As an aside, I think there are lots of women that genuinely aren't bothered by whose surname their children have, but, it's the men that want them to have theirs! So the women just go along with it as they don't mind.

I am one of these women who doesn't have partner's name but gave his name to DC. I wanted DC to always have that link with their dad. I felt that I already had a link and didn't need it. On the scale of free choices that oppress women it's not exactly letting men choke you during sex, is it.

I graduated on a course after I married. A few women at the uni made an issue over me having my married name on my certificate. As if they were saying “well you might divorce later so better to have your maiden name” it really annoyed me.

My DC have our family name. I married my husband, we are a family and I have his name and I’m happy with that.

To have some double barrelled stuff we’d either need to be pretentious, from another culture or trying to take a feminist stance.

If the latter case then you are really saying “I want to keep my fathers name alongside my husbands”… to my mind anyway. What’s the point?!

Maybe some don't think it's a big deal. I think you're expecting that everyone thinks like you OP and that of they don't then they should.
Things work differently for everyone. To each his own.

This is such a ridiculous and misogynistic argument. So in your mind are all women just nameless individuals walking around under a tag that actually belongs to a man that lived however many 100s of years ago? So their names mean nothing to them? so stupid. If my grandfather gave my father his name it became HIS name. Just like when my dad gave me my name at birth it became MY name. That is my name: it’s always been my name, it’s how everyone knows me, it’s my identity.

No one owns another human being

Agree.

if it were truly a free choice, no socialisation or expectation, we’d see 50% of men changing their names, or children being given mum’s name, to create the “family unit”.

but I’d guess the percentage of men taking women’s name is somewhere closer to 0.

we should be seeing the brothers of all these women with complicated, hard to spell, ugly or associated with abusive parents taking their wives names because they’re “nicer”.

we should be seeing men taking their wives names to show how proud they are to be married and create the family unit.

but we don’t.

This thread is quite baffling.

So many defensive women desperate to claim that their decision to take their husband’s name was somehow taken in a cultural vacuum; although there is a centuries-old tradition of women taking their husband’s name, which is absolutely baked into our society, this had precisely zero effect on their decision!

As it happens, I did take my husband’s name, and my children have that name too. This arrangement appeals to my sense of order, but it certainly wasn’t a feminist act! I do, now, consider myself a feminist (and am overwhelmed with despair when I hear women denigrating feminism whilst reaping all its benefits) but I was young when I got married and it was quite unusual not to take your husband’s name. I don’t feel ashamed or defensive about the decision I made, and I’m able to see very clearly how it was influenced by tradition and patriarchy.

I think, if I were getting married now, I would choose differently. But I can also see that there might be specific instances in which women do decide to take their husband’s name which are in fact nothing to do with the patriarchy, say if their maiden name was so dreadful/detrimental to their life in some way. But those instances must be vanishingly few. The OP was clearly not talking about those; she was talking about the issue at a societal level.

If equal numbers of men already took their wives’ names, then I think we could talk about a free choice. As it stands, the over-bearing weight of a patriarchal tradition is going to be a factor in 99% of cases.

So what if your name became the family name? Why not? Oh sorry cos that’s taking a “feminist stance” , and you’d much rather take a “patriarchal stance” and have your husbands name 🙄

Excellently put.

There are certain areas in certain countries, very rare but they do exist, where there’s a matrilineal line. There’s a particular area in Kerala, India for example where names are matronymic to reflect matriarchal culture. Matriarchal cultures have existed historically, but far outnumbered by patriarchal ones.

I’ve already given the example of trade names, there are residence names, attribute names like Redhead or Whitehead, etc - but the vast majority are patrilineal nonetheless.