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

Isn't it lucky that despite not being influenced by a patriarchal society and being totally free thinking the name you chose just happened to be your DH's name?

You’re missing the point: a. Smiths were male, b. The first smith it was given to in the family was male and c. It was passed down the male line.

It's very frustrating being asked to justify your personal decisions in this way, and it's probably unsurprising that people are defensive about it. The more so because it's a guarantee no man will ever be asked to do the same. Nor are they likely - as happens to me - to be addressed as Mr Wifesname as long as 15 years after their marriage.

However, a lot of the women upthread have disclosed their reasons, and it's clear that the majority are not just borne of a desire to embrace or reject patriarchal traditions. There are all sorts of considerations people have made, and for the most part these are informed decisions. That's why I find it all the more interesting to understand the conditions under which these decisions are made.

@kittykat2000 - your situation with the registrar is nothing short of outrageous. Their attitude was rudeness and cheek beyond belief, particularly given that in unmarried couples it's only the mother who can register the child without the father's presence, not vice versa. I had a similar situation with my mother's death certificate. They were insistent on recording her occupation as 'wife of Mr Hisname, HIS occupation', rather then her own occupation. I was grieving and irrational, and admit that I blew my top. They were separated, he was an abusive bastard, and I knew my mum would be disgusted. People might well ask me 'your mother had just died, didn't you have more important things to worry about, especially given she was the last person in a position to care?' Well yes, I did have better things to do, but this was one of the last tasks I was ever able to perform for her, and given our family history it just felt like the final fucking insult. And it stung, beyond belief. It's nothing short than systemic sexism for any woman to be put in this position, and IMO, a disgraceful way to treat a grieving daughter. I truly hope that this system has been altered now.

As to the Hisname debacle which has really become an exercise in semantics upthread, yes, undeniably we have a patriarchal lineage recording every human's existence in this society. That ceases to be a patriarchal lineage once women: double-barrel their names, create a portmanteau of the two names, pluck a new name completely out of the air at random, or retain their own family names. It doesn't matter how you go about doing it. Once any of the above happens, the patriarchal naming system ceases to be patriarchal.

I don't want a new, made-up name. My whole stance is that, as a woman, there should be no greater obligation for me to relinquish MY own identity on marriage, than there is for a man. It was my family name I wanted to retain; my history bound up with my name; my identity I didn't want to cast completely to one side because I'd chosen to commit formally to one partner for life.

My name is my name. It's on loan to me from no one. And ironically, I've achieved far more recognition under that name than my father ever managed in his lifetime. From his perspective that would irk him no end, and I'm not sorry.

When I had my children I didn’t think about it all the way I do now. It’s one of my biggest regrets giving them their father’s surname. They were born with my name so they should have kept my name.

It wouldn’t bother me as much if he wasn’t a deadbeat and was a really good father.
But because he hasn’t worked for 5 years, drinks heavily, doesn’t take them to clubs, doesn’t take them to school, doesn’t do their homework with them, doesn’t wash them, feed them, clothe them, doesn’t have any ambition for them, doesn’t provide financially for them, lives in a scruffy flat because he can’t bothered keeping it clean etc etc etc…. it makes it all very difficult much harder to accept that he has the privilege of his children having his name. I do 99.9% for my children and he does the bare minimum. And yet my children have no connection to me/my family through names at all. My parents do more for the kids than he does.

The trouble is the courts wouldn’t accept him being a bum/shite father as a good reason for me to change their names. Because they see children as separate to the parents and that’s their identity now.
He’s dead set on not agreeing to change their names. So all I can do now is at least try to get get their names changed, and if it doesn’t work then encourage them to change their names when they are 16.

Yes. These men with their 'nice' surnames will often have sisters. When those sisters get married, do their husbands change to their 'nicer' names? I doubt it.

Obviously everyone is free to take whatever name they choose. But let's not pretend this is a gender neutral decision, simply based on how 'nice' the surname is perceived to be.

In my case: I genuinely didn’t care.

I didn’t change my name on marriage. A large part of that is because I don’t think sharing a name has anything to do with being a family or belonging or closeness.

Given I believe that, it would be rather inconsistent to care about the DC sharing my name.

I kept my birth surname on marriage but gave my ds my husbands surname with mine as a middle name. Middle names aren’t used often (though I like it’s on his passport) so for day to day purposes he “has his dad’s name”. I’m happy with this in a feminist context because my dh is an equal parent to me. He’s on the school email list and cubs parents list etc. It’s still sometimes difficult for people not to just assume mum is default parent or to group “mum and kids” together and father slightly separate so in our situation with two different surnames for ds to have his not mine then it helps counter this a bit.

I liked the name, it goes well with my first name so why not? I mean the next-door neighbours also had a name that I liked and went well with my first name, but changing it to that would have just been weird.

But it doesn’t follow that every son that followed was a smith does it?

So why does it have to follow that every smith is male? The women enabled men to be smiths so have just as much entitlement to the name.

We’re basically the first generation of women who have been able to make a choice about this without serious social consequences for ourselves and any children

Sorry but that just isn't true. Women have been keeping thier original names for centuries in all kinds of situations. There are also many countries in the world where women don't change name on marriage.

I enjoy the community of my family. And the tangibility of being " the sunglasses" and yes took DH's name except professionally.

🤷‍♀️
It didn't feel a big deal and I had the choice and it felt fluid and in my control. Like another poster said I felt the babies were mine, they came from me. And it was a way of sharing. This was quite subconscious though.

I feel like feminism has given me the choice to view the decision in quite a light hearted, casual way. It wasn't a biggie. On reflection I'm grateful.

It's not a hill I'd die on in any way now. I like all my names and the different identities.

I don't feel it's a gender neutral decision. We are lumbered with " the way " it's been done over centuries. But it's like a dot of unimportance to me.

Are you joking?

Marriage is a great deal for men. The opposite is true for women.

This actually isn't right. It's a tradition that women give their own name to their children, it's just that traditionally the woman's name would have been the same as the father of her children because she would typically have been married and changed her own name before their birth. So all the unmarried women who (like me) give their children the dad's name are historical outliers.

Edit: I'm sorry @Klcak I can't read tonight I see this is actually what you said!

You can't just keep double barrelling though can you? Not after the first generation.
And they are a mouthful and do cause confusion. Or they get shortened anyway.
So it's up to the couple how they want to do it.

Why would you encourage them to change their name. Yes, give them the option, but pressuring them seems a bit far.

I really don't think this represents the conundrum people often claim it does. Adult humans are sentient beings, endowed as a species with intelligence and imagination. It really isn't all that difficult to make a decision surrounding your own preference of identity, as the former generation has done before you.

This is all rather confused and primarily focused on feelz over facts.

As surnames are patronymic it’s really a moot point which man’s name you choose to take and there’s nothing inherently feminist in choosing one patriarchal name over another.

You seem to feel strongly that keeping your father’s name is important to you; another woman may have disliked her father or he fucked off and she’d rather take her DH’s surname. Or, she may just prefer her DH’s surname to hers and that’s her choice.

A truly feminist act would be to determine a surname of your choosing and pass it to your kids.

Yes, children traditionally have their mothers surname. DH has his mother's maiden name rather than his father's because she wasn't married to him.

I think it's a weird thing to get so worked up about!

My husband suggested we double-barrel our surnames for our child (currently pregnant), but I already have a long name and know how annoying it is filling in forms so don't want them to be saddled with a surname that is 14 characters long. Plus, my brothers have already have 3 children between them with our family name, my husband's sister is unlikely to have kids so he's the only one who would continue his family name. Lastly, I just want to 😜

I kept my maiden name after getting married, am the breadwinner (which he isn't bothered about), and am an all-round feminist, but I don't see naming my kids after my husband's last name as an unfeminist act any more than naming them after my father's (which is my surname)!

Yes that’s what I meant by encourage (give them the option and why). I didn’t say pressure at all. It’s a conversation that I will be having with them.

No, for those at the back, those that followed were not all smiths but the name Smith was passed down the male line.

I think a bit of history would help.

Yes it was once. I first mentioned you in reference to bullying the poster, that was the ‘once’, and then I have been replying to you when you’ve tagged me, which has been a number of times.

The thing about double-barrelled names is where does it stop? What if your child marries another child with a double-barrelled name and they have children with what - quadruple barrelled names? Short sighted IMO. The child has to have a name but yes I don’t see why not the mum’s name especially if she hasn’t taken the dad’s name in marriage.

You just repeated what I said. If anyone is at the back, it’s you. And at some point the name started passing to females as well.

If you don’t have an answer to my point, just say so.