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

No need to be angry just because women make different choices.

But the statistic is huge. 95% does point to societal pressure.

This. Even when the man's name is Pratt or similar.

A question for all the women on here who changed their name/gave their children their dad’s name because his was nicer/easier to spell etc…

do any of you have brothers? Did they keep their names?

blows my mind when I think about a woman with an ugly name who changes it..

who has a brother with a wife who’s name is even uglier..

who has a brother who’s wife has a name even uglier..

where does it stop? Do women only marry men with nicer names? Why do we never reach the bottom of the chain where there’s men with really ridiculous names who can’t wait to change theirs?

Her surname comes from her father, or if she takes her mother’s name, her mother’s father

Women don't have their own names? If she takes her father's name, it comes from her father. If mother's name, the name comes from her mother. It's mother's name, doesn't matter how she got it - mum, dad, deed poll, still hers just as much as father's name is his.

But the statistic is huge. 95% does point to societal pressure.

Agree it's the tradition that runs through society like a stick of rock. Don't deny that.

But your children are your husband's no matter what their surname. Just as they are yours no matter the surname.

It seems odd to me that women are saying that because they gestated, birthed and fed their babies, the men should be 'compensated' by having the children take their name. To me, that argument should be reversed. A mother makes a much bigger sacrifice to create her children. The father had no physical role beyond conception. To me, that strengthens the case for the children to have her name, not his.

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

No.

I didnt take my husbands surname but I dont mind kids taking his surname at all. It doesnt bother me whose name our kids take because I know my DH repects me and women in general. He believes in equal rights for both men and women and would have had no problem if I wanted kids to take my surname instead. I agree with some of the posters, feminism is about freedom of choices. I dont need the kids to take my surname to show that we are equals because I know we are.

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

not “gifted” as they’re not property but yes, I guess I symbolically bound them together. There’s no question about their maternity, I birthed them and society sees children and mothers as “naturally bonded” so maybe the name bit emphasises paternal involvement in all aspects of parenting.

To me, that argument should be reversed. A mother makes a much bigger sacrifice to create her children.

And will more likely also do more parenting, (from baby classes, schools, doc visitst etc etc) and in case of break up, is more likely to be the resident parent. Having to explain all the time that yes you Ms X are the mother of little Y.

Excellently put.

What's really bizarre to me is when women give children the father's name even when they are not married to him.

It seems odd to me that women are saying that because they gestated, birthed and fed their babies, the men should be 'compensated' by having the children take their name.

I don't see 'compensation' as the right word at all.

To me, that argument should be reversed. A mother makes a much bigger sacrifice to create her children. The father had no physical role beyond conception. To me, that strengthens the case for the children to have her name, not his.

Nor do I see it it as a " well I did all the work " thing.

I see it as I fundamentally birthed these humans, literally connected by flesh, and their father is connected by name. Like I said it joins the circle.

But you literally did do all the work. Why do you think labour is called labour?

None of your points negate the fact that feminism is about equality rather than choice.

You can be all those things by having your husband changing his name to yours, or by choosing a completely different one together, or by double barrelling.

The vast majority don’t do that so clearly there is something else to it.

You can try and twist it all you want. You can attempt whataboutery. You can double down.
People can read though.

You said it's not her name. It is.

You are wrong.

Sorry, but I still think it's an odd sort of reasoning. Surely your children are connected to their father by DNA? Which will be the case no matter what their name is?

And if you 'did all the work' how come he gets rewarded by getting to be the one to pass on his name?

Yeah this. ^ I was quite happy to take my DH's surname, and give our children his name too. And I am not going to explain myself to ANYone. So what if the woman carried and birthed the child @LefthandRight It's not like the bloody MAN can do it is it? Daft argument.

I have noticed that some feminists just simply cannot BEAR it when other women do things they see as 'anti feminist.'

You lost me at 'I knew people would come on here and spout that ''feminism is about choice'' bollocks!' Shows you can't stand to hear from anyone who has the AUDACITY to not agree with you.

I wrote this on another thread and I can't be bothered to type it all again.

OH didn't particularly care one way or the other (it was my decision ) and no pressure from family or friends/outsiders .Yes DD's very English name would've sounded quite stupid with my very foreign surname (and that's the reason I normally give when asked) , but that wasn't the main reason. The main reason is that I didn't want her to automatically be an other , have to explain herself, her existence or presence here. There are many negative connotations with the country I'm from and I didn't want her to carry that around with her like I do. My surname is very obviously from X.Things might change by the time she's older but I didn't want her CV dismissed based on her last name, be met with distrust or suspicion here or abroad like I was and so on. Her dad's English name offered her an extra layer of protection because I know there's a lot of crap coming her way simply for being a girl. I didn't want to add any extra on that for being from X (even if she was born and raised here) . Her wellbeing came and always will come way ahead my principles. I realise that it's a bit robbing Peter to pay Paul ( perpetuating one harmful tradition to avoid other harm) but I had to "choose".

Of course not. I've never subscribed to the 'feminism is about choice' mantra: I see that as a huge oversimplification.

Just read that 95% of women didn’t want women to have the right to vote and opposed the Suffrage.

The similarity is interesting.

Maybe in 150 years time most babies will get their mother’s name.

Yes, and they then argue that they are following tradition which is not the case at all.

Sorry, but I still think it's an odd sort of reasoning. Surely your children are connected to their father by DNA? Which will be the case no matter what their name is?

Of course. But there are lots more than one connection available.

And if you 'did all the work' how come he gets rewarded by getting to be the one to pass on his name?

Is that the reward? If I want to pass on a name particularly I'd name my child that way.
I have all those options.