Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

323 replies

Witchywishy · 25/09/2025 16:27

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?

OP posts:
diddl · 26/09/2025 08:54

Surely though the only "cards" she holds are because they aren't married?

She has all the "rights" as she will initially be the only one recognised as a parent.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 26/09/2025 09:04

Witchywishy · 26/09/2025 08:23

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.

But why should she? She doesn't have to. And if he'd had his way the baby wouldn't even exist.

I think this is a fantastic lesson for your friend and all his male friends. If you don't want a baby, use a condom every time, even if your partner says she is on the pill. If your girlfriend has an accidental pregnancy despite using contraception and she wants to keep the baby, accept that it is completely her decision and offer to marry her straight away if you want to be on the birth certificate and have a say in the baby's name.

Or, alternatively, accept that the mother is the one doing all the hard work and that if you really think about it from any perspective other than the patriarchal one we have all been conditioned to expect, it is absolutely logical that the baby should have his or her mother's surname. If you want to share that surname, there's nothing to stop you from changing yours.

Baggyit · 26/09/2025 09:08

Woompund · 26/09/2025 08:51

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

He was unsure if he wanted a child, not to mind marriage.
She would be mad to take him seriously.
As her pregnancy has progressed she has become protective of her baby that he was ambivalent about.
She doesn't need financial support.
He is more focused on his ego than her or the baby.
No wonder she has zero interest in marrying him, much less giving her baby his name.

I think naive single unmarried women often profoundly regret giving their child a different name to theirs, particularly as so many men are deadbeats after a relationship ends.

I admire women who are unmarried and insist their child has their name alone.

Valkyrie3 · 26/09/2025 09:36

She is completely right. Well done @Randomlygeneratednameand @SapphireSeptemberand any others I’ve missed. My children all have my surname, which, considering their dad buggered off to the other side of the world, is a great thing. I think it should be the norm, given that mothers tend to stay around for their children more than fathers. Also don’t understand divorced women who keep their ex’s surname.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 26/09/2025 09:55

Witchywishy · 26/09/2025 08:38

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.

Speaking from experience, sometimes you can not particularly like your surname, and then come face to face with the possibility of changing it and realise that it would be weird to change it, because like it or not, it is your name and your identity. I always assumed I would change my name upon marriage, and then I just never did, because it felt weird. I think the older the woman is at the time, the more likely she is to feel weird about changing her name. Because she's been living with it for much longer, and she's also had more time to consider how sexist this tradition actually is.

The point is, she doesn't have to compromise. It is her decision and hers alone. And the more he tries to throw his weight around, the more she will dig her heels in.

Tell me this. If they were married and he actually had a say in this, do you think he would be proactively suggesting a double barrelled surname? Or would he be perfectly happy for the baby to just have his surname? Because when you talk about compromising, it kind of suggests that he and his friends think the default position is that the baby ONLY has their father's surname, and that double barrelling is something to be reluctantly agreed to if the missus really insists.

Why does he think it would be perfectly fine for the woman who has literally grown this child in her body and given birth to it and will most likely be the primary caregiver to not have her identity represented in her child's name AT ALL, whereas the man who did nothing but ejaculate (and then ask a 40 year old woman to have an abortion because he wasn't ready yet) gets to pass on his surname and his alone?

Honestly, the sheer entitlement of these men.

She is absolutely right to dig her heels in, and more women should do likewise. In her position I wouldn't want to double barrel either. I would take the view that he had done nothing to deserve any compromise from me, and that this man-child who wanted me to terminate what might be my only successful pregnancy because at the age of 40 he doesn't think he's good enough at adulting to be ready for fatherhood yet was unlikely to be a good father or stick around for the long haul. Fathers who prove their worth can be married or added to birth certificates and given parental responsibility later. Children's names can be changed or double-barrelled at a later date with the consent of both parents. But deadbeat dads who want all the perks of fatherhood without any of the responsibility can be a thorn in your side until your child has reached adulthood.

He has one job now, which is to prove to her that he is actually willing to commit to her and their child, and to be a good dad. So he needs to stop moaning about the name and get on with it.

DownThePubWithStevieNicks · 26/09/2025 10:08

Witchywishy · 26/09/2025 07:59

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.

Bargaining power, that classic foundation for a healthy relationship.

catSlaveToTwo · 26/09/2025 10:12

I think the older the woman is at the time, the more likely she is to feel weird about changing her name. Because she's been living with it for much longer, and she's also had more time to consider how sexist this tradition actually is.

It's also more work as there are more practical paperwork things in your name older adult you are - bank accounts pensions, ID, work history etc.

I got married mid 20s having been engaged a few years - I went along with tradition not being bothered bar same name as kids and DH was - but it was really big rigmarole I wasn't expecting and I had less paperwork that age - it was lot of work and some cost - surprisingly so as it was more standard to do so.

I had quiet a few reasons for doing it - prior name had issue though turned out just changed one set of issues for another. Even if I got divorced now I wouldn't change again or revert to prior name I've had the new surname in adulthood longer than my prior name.

He doesn't sound great TBH - and I agree with you OP she's being sensible and it's odd the men at your party were so taken back.

PhuckTrump · 26/09/2025 10:47

Valkyrie3 · 26/09/2025 09:36

She is completely right. Well done @Randomlygeneratednameand @SapphireSeptemberand any others I’ve missed. My children all have my surname, which, considering their dad buggered off to the other side of the world, is a great thing. I think it should be the norm, given that mothers tend to stay around for their children more than fathers. Also don’t understand divorced women who keep their ex’s surname.

I would keep my DH’s surname if we ever got divorced. I would want to keep the same name as my children, and it was a ballache to change it in the first place—passport, drivers license, electoral roll, banks, work, utility bills, mortgage, council tax, will, pensions, investments, National Insurance, NHS, etc. I wouldn’t do that again.

CrispieCake · 26/09/2025 11:34

Valkyrie3 · 26/09/2025 09:36

She is completely right. Well done @Randomlygeneratednameand @SapphireSeptemberand any others I’ve missed. My children all have my surname, which, considering their dad buggered off to the other side of the world, is a great thing. I think it should be the norm, given that mothers tend to stay around for their children more than fathers. Also don’t understand divorced women who keep their ex’s surname.

I'd keep my DH's name if we divorced. If he wanted me to change it, he'd have to agree to the kids changing their surnames as well. The kids and I are the "core unit" and I'm not having a different name to them. I'm not criticising my husband in particular, but due to his work hours and working away, I've ended up doing the lion's share of the parenting like many women do.

TheOnlyWayisGerard · 26/09/2025 11:37

I gave my baby my surname. I’m in a relationship with his father, but we aren’t married. If we were married and I had changed my name, of course he’d get our surname but whilst I have my own, I’ll give any children my own name. My older child (different father) also has my surname. I don’t even particularly like my surname, but I felt it was important for my children to have the same name as me. I’m much less likely to bugger off and leave them (statistically speaking).

Livpool · 26/09/2025 12:18

Baby should always have mum’s name IMO - sometimes that is the same as the father but if not, always mother

Lua · 26/09/2025 13:56

BettysRoasties · 25/09/2025 19:55

Since when does having or not having your father’s surname become a doing what’s right for the baby?

Nobody ever seems to argue the women the person carrying and birthing should definitely have her name in there otherwise the dad is only thinking of himself.

I hope the babies a girl and then all those sexist views can bugger off anyway as if she had her dads surname it would clearly only be borrowed till she got married so completely irrelevant 😂

It has always been wrong to only have the name of one parent only!

Having just the father's name is wrong. Equally, just having the mother's does not seem right either. Both mother and father will have legal rights and responsibilities, and both contributed to the biological make up, so why put a single name on it?

Butchyrestingface · 26/09/2025 14:01

She sounds like she has her head screwed on.

AndresyFiorella · 26/09/2025 14:19

Horsie · 25/09/2025 18:27

So everyone comes into marriage with two names, in that case, correct? Does each parent pick the one they like best for their child? And almost everyone in Spain has two last names?

Are they hyphenated?

Yes everyone has two surnames. When I was reporting a crime in Costa Rica they were baffled I only had one surname. Not hyphenated. It's still patriarchal as in the name that the kids get is normally the father's name of each parent. But at least everyone has a name from both parents.

LadyDanburysHat · 26/09/2025 15:11

What a shame for the poor mens to get what life is like for women most of the time, no power. Men are so used to getting what they want that they just can't wrap their heads around not getting their own way.

TheRealGoose · 26/09/2025 15:45

He sounds a fool. Telling a 40 year old woman to terminate and have a baby later. Does he not understand biology. And he’s in his 40s and wanted to get his life on track. When would that be, he’s had decades. She wanted marriage he didn’t propose. Now he wants the kid to have his name then all of a sudden does. She’s right not to budge.hes a flakey selfish fool

latetothefisting · 26/09/2025 16:00

Redpeach · 25/09/2025 16:31

So her dad's name or father of child's name ? i'd go for the latter

I don't know why so many people think this is some sort of intellectual gotcha.

It's not 'her dad's name' it's HER name. The name she's had all her life.

If you're using that lack of logic then surely it's not even her dad's surname, it's his great great great whoever was the first black"smith" or "John's son" or whatever in their family 500 years ago.

If you're so convinced that only men can own names then why not say she's choosing between her dad's surname and her boyfriend's dad's surname? If OP's male friend's surname is his own and not his dad's, then so is hers.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 26/09/2025 16:00

Lua · 26/09/2025 13:56

It has always been wrong to only have the name of one parent only!

Having just the father's name is wrong. Equally, just having the mother's does not seem right either. Both mother and father will have legal rights and responsibilities, and both contributed to the biological make up, so why put a single name on it?

Realistically, the mother has contributed a lot more.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 26/09/2025 16:01

latetothefisting · 26/09/2025 16:00

I don't know why so many people think this is some sort of intellectual gotcha.

It's not 'her dad's name' it's HER name. The name she's had all her life.

If you're using that lack of logic then surely it's not even her dad's surname, it's his great great great whoever was the first black"smith" or "John's son" or whatever in their family 500 years ago.

If you're so convinced that only men can own names then why not say she's choosing between her dad's surname and her boyfriend's dad's surname? If OP's male friend's surname is his own and not his dad's, then so is hers.

Edited

Don't be silly.

Men have their own names
Women have the names of the men who own them.

Duh!

QueenClinomania · 26/09/2025 19:16

She is being sensible. The baby should have her name.

DorothyStorm · 26/09/2025 21:19

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.
Ha! I bet they did!

Summerhillsquare · 27/09/2025 05:16

Timeforabitofpeace · 25/09/2025 16:32

So many drip drip threads suddenly advocating for men, against the rights of women, over previously accepted issues. I wonder why?

Yes, feels like a campaign almost. These people need to read the famous "irresponsible ejaculators" thread from pre-fash Twitter. Men must understand that sex is likely to result in pregnancy and that there are consequences. Women mostly bear those consequences, this is a teeny tiny example of a woman claiming back some power.

GabriellaMontez · 27/09/2025 09:16

Witchywishy · 26/09/2025 08:23

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.

He didnt want a formal contract with her.

But still thought he was in a position to negotiate.

Little lesson for him there!!!

PithyTaupeWriter · 27/09/2025 09:22

Good for her! She's the one doing the heavy lifting of carrying and giving birth to the child. Why is it the status quo that men automatically get naming rights?
I'd change my tune on the matter if he was a dedicated, hands-on type, doing his share of child care and maintaining a home, but somehow I doubt he is.

xsquared · 27/09/2025 09:29

Does the mother of your friend's child even want to be with him?

She's making all the decisions and sounds like she doesn't need him.