My friend can't win, but don't know if he should

[Witchywishy]

Not my situation, was out for dinner last night and we were talking about a mutual friend. His girlfriend is pregnant, he wasn't sure initially if he wanted her to keep it, but she was adamant and now he is onboard and happy with the outcome.

But he is disappointed she is insisting the baby has her name. She said that because they aren't married the baby will have her name- he has asked to double barrel as a compromise and she has said she doesn't need to compromise and that's that. Apparently he's now proposed, and she's said that she would have married him pre-pregnancy but now he's only doing it for the sake of the name.

Part of me has admiration for her sticking to her guns. But part of me feels sorry for my friend. The men in the group are all pretty horrified. Apart from it not really being our business what does the hive mind think on her stance?

Realistically, she will be the one left holding the baby. A baby he didn't want because the timing was inconvenient for him. With a woman that he hasn't made a commitment to. In her situation I would have given the baby my surname.

Actually, I took my Hs name on marriage. I wish I hadn't. I asked to double barrel and he was very offended. I wish I had stuck to my guns then. Why is my identity less important than his? I don't even like my maiden name buy it was my bloody name.

Anyway, we were talking about an issue that a friend is having with his ex wife. He wants his poxy name back. He wants her to go back to her maiden name. My H couldn't understand why should would keep his surname. I explained that it had been her name for 20 years. It's her name. It's her kids name. It's a lot of bloody paper work. I told my H if we ever divorce and he wants his name back I will give it to him as soon as he consents to change the children's names.

Good for her.

So, to be fair, he's not merely a sexist arse; he's a selfish and stupid sexist arse.

This isn't changing my view that she is making the right decision about marriage and name, but is making me wonder why she's with him at all.

I chose to double-barrel on marriage. I don’t really see the problem with double-barrelling the baby, to be honest - it would still have her name (and his).

My DF’s ex wife kept my DF’s name after they divorced. She shares it with my half-siblings, and I think it used to be common to keep your married name even after divorce with or without children. You can’t re-write history, even if we’d sometimes like to.

Good on her for standing her ground. She's right, he's only proposed now because of the name situation. It was her who decided to bring the baby into the world, he doesn't actually sound that committed.

I love this woman!! Good for her!

Reminds me of this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/1c34it1/aita_for_deliberately_misunderstanding_my_childs/

(I'd recommend reading the OP's posts and her comments.)

This friend of yours OP didn't initially want a child with this woman, then said he did but wanted his surname 🙄 then when she said no (good for her) he decided they should get married. 🙄

This issue is quite a strong contentious one in the red pill world.

It's not that your friend "can't win" it's that he's not the prize he thinks he is. 🤦 I suspect and hope that this lady has seen his true colours. Why would she want to marry him?! Why would she give the baby his name?!

My kids do have their dad's surname by the way, and I'm not too fussed but if I could go back in time I'd probably have given them mine given the odds of long term relationships being forever it just makes it easier for them to have the same surname as mum in my experience.

My kid's dad never said they didn't want them though. If he had I'd probably had decided they were my surname from that point on.

Would his surname work at all as a middle name? That way it wouldn't stop her travelling etc.

But really, I get why she's doing it.

Do you think all children should have both parents' surname? Or only when the parents aren't married/don't share a surname?

What a bitch. Man tells her to abort her child and refuses to marry her. Then he changes his mind and asks to marry just so he can give child his name. Isn't he romantic.

Seriously, sounds like he's messed her around quite a bit and she's not falling for it anymore.

Good for her I say. He sounds like a lot bit of a twat tbh. She seems to have the measure of him.

@Apocketfilledwithposies

It's not that your friend "can't win" it's that he's not the prize he thinks he is.

Excellent summary of the situation. poor baby feeling sorry for himself and venting to friends now that he doesn't hold all the cards.

People who have kids don't magically never have e.g. work problems ever again.

The baby is coming and he needs to get on board because he is the only father his baby will get.

I think what caused the shock, was he doesn't hold ANY cards. They were looking at his problem and were surprised that he held absolutely no bargaining power at all. The men found this quite difficult to accept.

Literally all he has done to make this baby is have unprotected sex. And if he had had his way the baby wouldn't even be born.

Why does he think he should hold any cards?

But this is just bargaining power over the child's name. As he can prove he is the dad, he can apply for parental responsibility and be an active part of this child's life. Or is that not the kind of "cards" he wants, just control of the name?

Thanks all. I think the board confirmed my thoughts on the issue. I was just thrown by most of our group being so upset on his behalf and trying to find a solution for him. Where I don't actually think he deserves one.

I empathise with him of course, but I think she is doing the right thing.

I think all children should get their mother's surname and all men should have their names automatically hyphenated to match their children's surname.

So if you meet a man with a quadruple barrelled surname you know he's fathered children with three different women.

There is a solution. He can change his name by deed poll to match his child's.

Well she never said to him that he wouldn't be involved. It's just decisions she's made so far that he disagrees with (or disagreed with at the time), keeping the baby, and the name, it's been a wake up call that he has absolutely no say in the final decision.

She's listening to him- but he says it's like speaking to a wall. She doesn't interrupt, listens to everything he say, but then doesn't move an inch.

They wouldn't see it as a problem if the baby had his name and not hers. So why it is a problem the other way around? Are any of them able to articulate why, without invoking sexist traditions?

Interesting that what all these sad little men want is bargaining power, and not an equal relationship. Thoughts and prayers for their struggles to accept this.

I think it was more that some have had discussions on name around marriage and things, but the problem hasn't come from the baby having her name, but more that as a couple they haven't talked through it and come to a compromise they are both happy with.

One has double barrelled with his wife on their kids names, I don't think he ever thought when they were discussing it that the alternative was that the kids took his wife's name- I think he thought he was the one giving HER the concession because it meant a lot to her.

It's also a real surprise because we all know she doesn't like her surname - she says it's too long and everyone mispronounces it.

Does he understand that she is thinking about what is best for baby (having the same name as the primary parent who really wants the baby and is going to be consistently present in the baby’s life - from what we have been told) whereas he is only thinking about his own preferences? Or does he not think that what is best for baby matters?

What compromise has he offered?

He's shocked to find that he has no way of asserting his wishes above the mother's. Well.