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

Then that's fine.

Just let's not pretend that women are 'choosing' to take their husband's names because men always have 'nicer' names. Or that men are indifferent to the whole thing and would happily take their wife's names, were it not of course for the fact that their names are so much 'nicer'. The vast majority would not. The only reason that naming traditions are 'no big deal' is because only a very small number of women challenge them.

It's about solidarity and belonging and being a tight strong family unit.

Is there any particular reason there could not be such a unit if the family took the woman's name?

But the point is that it’s much easier for the man to prevail in this particular argument because he has the whole weight of tradition, convention and patriarchy on his side. It’s not an even playing field as yet, not nearly! Many men are sexist and domineering (you don’t have to spend long on mumsnet to see that!) and this is a highly convenient and still socially acceptable way to assert that dominance. There’s no point pretending these forces don’t exist.

Just let's not pretend that women are 'choosing' to take their husband's names because men always have 'nicer' names. Or that men are indifferent to the whole thing and would happily take their wife's names, were it not of course for the fact that their names are so much 'nicer'. The vast majority would not. The only reason that naming traditions are 'no big deal' is because only a very small number of women challenge them.

Who's 'pretending'?

No I disagree. I think it's no big deal because you could choose either way. It kind of takes the heat off and no longer such an issue.
There ms not so much to prove.

Interesting article in the Atlantic from Oct 2021 about how patrilineal naming conventions are enforced in the US. Behind a paywall so I have excerpted the relevant section here.

‘Today, women aren’t legally mandated to give their husband’s last name to their children but U.S. bureaucracy has continued to enforce patrilineal naming conventions. Anthony has researched court cases in which couples battle over who has the right to pass down the surname to their kids. “The mother almost always loses,” Anthony told me. Individual judges have repeatedly used the legal doctrine of the “best interests of the child” to side with the father.

“There’s this implicit understanding that having the father’s last name is inherently in the child’s best interest,” she said, citing cases where judges argued that taking the father’s surname would deepen the family relationship or provide children with more financial security later in life. Some states, such as Louisiana, that enforce patrilineal surnaming as a default when the father is known and supports the children, unless both partners agree otherwise.’

https://archive.ph/pIm3E

So far on this thread, we've had women say their husband's name is: "stronger", "nicer", "more easy to spell", "at a better end of the alphabet", "easier to pronounce", etc

So did all your mother's who chose to give you your dad's name collectively say "we want our kids to have hard to pronounce, hard to spell, weaker names at the wrong end of the alphabet?

Will none of you just admit that you have symbolically 'gifted' your children to your husbands?

Agreed.

Who's pretending?

Lots of people. This thread is full of 'I just took my husband's name because his is so much nicer' comments. I don't think there has been even one saying 'We all took my name because it's so much nicer'.

Why is that do you think? Roughly equal numbers of men and women will have both the ghastly names women are apparently so keen to get rid of, and the lovely poetic names that they are so eager to change to. Yet the name changing, with a tiny number of exceptions, happens in one direction only. It's highly disingenuous to shrug your shoulders and say "you could choose either way". Theoretically yes, you could, but all the weight of society, history and tradition is on one side only. It's silly to try to claim otherwise.

This question never gets answered.

Is there any particular reason there could not be such a unit if the family took the woman's name?

No not really.

My instinctive feeling was that our babies were mine, they came from me. What included their father was for them to have his name. It squared the circle. It wasn't about 'ownership'.

@IcedPurple 9

Also no one has mentioned the kids.

I was absolutely set on my first child's first name - if we had decided to use my name, their acronym would be ASS as opposed to ASG and the second would be PMS 😂😂😂

Yes, but it's also your surname. Babies have to be registered with a surname and your parents chose the same surname as your father's for you.
My father, mother, my brother and I have the same surname. I don't see it as having my father's surname and/or my mother's and/or my brother's surname. It's our family name and it belongs to all of us equally and individually. Just as it's equally and individually my children's surname.

It’s reported that 95% of children have their dad’s name. Seems strange that 95% of mothers felt that the dad’s surname was nicer or that they could only have a tight solid family unit with everyone getting the dad’s name.

Agreed to a point, but it isn't quite so simple as having made one 'anti-feminist' choice that doesn't benefit women overall. I might have made choices deemed 'good enough' feminism, but might well make 'anti-feminist' choices if I believed those were really in my own or my loved ones' best interests. I made my decisions as to post-marital/DC naming because they happened to stem from my own belief system about equality, because they align with my personal values, and because I believed they benefited me personally.

This, therefore, wasn't a disinterested choice. I don't pretend to have made it for 'socially responsible' reasons, and for sure believe that I owe the mythical 'sisterhood' doodly squat. To what do they also owe me? Just look at the way many of them take others' personal decisions - even so apparently small and insigificant an issue as some would view it of their own preference of identity - as some kind of gratuitous insult. As for anti-suffragists and pro-lifers, I don't pretend to understand those stances at all.

I'll still defend women to the hilt if they're suffering as a result of the patriarchy - and we all do to some extent sooner or later - whether their views and mine chime or not. I also remain convinced that the sometimes the greatest enemies of women's emancipation are other women.

Me too. It's the only logical thing to do. Cannot understand why people still do anything else.

Theoretically yes, you could, but all the weight of society, history and tradition is on one side only. It's silly to try to claim otherwise.

I don't claim that the weight of society, history and tradition doesn't go down a one way street.

But if it doesn't matter that much 🤷‍♀️ fine . That's also what I felt.

I always want the right but I don't necessarily need to use it.

It’s reported that 95% of children have their dad’s name. Seems strange that 95% of mothers felt that the dad’s surname was nicer or that they could only have a tight solid family unit with everyone getting the dad’s name.

Tbh no one has said "it's the ONLY way to have a tight solid family unit."

That's simply not true. It's a detail you can enjoy. And I do.

And the "nicer name" is about individuals on this thread!

DH's friend was a Smith. He took his wife's name when they got married as it was less common. So it's not always the woman taking the man's name.

People don't have to have the same surname to be a “tight family unit” and it certainly doesn't have to be the man’s surname.

As I said before I would not have thought, before this thread, that the concept of patronymics in a patriarchal society would be such a challenge.

No-one has said, particularly not I, that a woman’s surname is not hers legally. You have completely missed the point.

Biologically your dc’s genes are half their dad’s and half yours.

The naming convention of dad’s name is more societal in my view rather than instinctive..

No not always.

But almost always.

No. They were already his children too.

This question never gets answered.

@novhange

Well that's not correct.