DP won't let me pick our daughter's name!

[JassyS]

Our daughter is due soon. DP wants her to have his surname, so I said that's fine, as long as I get to pick the first name. He says no, so I said, we double-barrel her surname, then we both get to pick a first name that we both like (but not love - there isn't a name we both love). Or she has my surname and he can pick.

He still thinks I'm being unreasonable!

[Believeitornot]

Why should the dp get "options"? Surely it's a discussion where both parties come up with ideas then you whittle it down. Not a case of "you can pick any name but it has to be one of these"

[nooka]

The OP seems to have offered her DP three options so I think she is being both reasonable and flexible. The DP doesn't like any of them, and is proposing that the baby has a name that the OP isn't happy with and saying she is not reasonable in not accepting that.

Why is the OP childish in being unhappy that her dp is not prepared to compromise? She wants at least part of the baby's name to be something she has chosen and likes, sounds quite normal to me.

Unmarried couples usually have discussions about the surnames of their children don't they? Married couples too I would think, although they might have the discussion much earlier when they decide about surnames on marriage. Men should not assume that their children will have their surname alone. Some partners might be happy with that, but many will not be for very legitimate reasons.

[sycamore54321]

I feel like I have read a completely different thread from the vast majority of posters. Surely it is neither unusual nor patriarchal nor extraordinary that both parents agree on both names. In reality, a large number of children have their father's surname. I would be extremely surprised if this meant that the mother and only the mother had full unfettered choice of first name, even if the father disliked it. In my experience of family, friends and online forums, in two-parent situations, even if no longer a couple, the baby's entire name is an agreed compromise between both parents, regardless of marital status. It seems to me extraordinary to pretend that this is in any way odd.

I also think adding up the who-gets-what name thing isn't realistic - the surname is generally an either-or-choice from the existing parents' surnames, whereas the first name could be literally anything.

Both the OP and partner sound quite childish and petulant in their behaviour. And some of the responses make me wonder if they are satire.

[TrumpsFluffyHair]

He's being a cock about the surname. No way in hell would my partner be dictating to me that our child would be given his surname and his surname alone! Outrageous. And the people who are siding with him.........crazy.

[kelou75]

You can register whatever names, including surname you and hopefully your partner decide on. You can even give a totally different surname to both maternal and paternal sides as these are purely names at the end of the day! It's only that we've all slipped into tradition. Yes you can register without your partner and not list him as the father but it wouldn't achieve a lot in the long run. He would then have no PR and it just all gets messy from there. Talk, sit down explain how you feel about the situation. 16 years together is longer than a lot of marriages, im sure you've not agreed on things in the past and reached a mutual compromise!
Also on a side note, you can even be married and not take on your other halfs surname. Its not about names, surnames, double barrelled names etc. It's all about the legalities and who is on the birth certificate as far as rights go with children. Names are a small fraction of who we are. It's a shame that alot of what drives us, is actually what others may think....

[DoinItFine]

I think a man who "won't agree" to double barrelling and "insists" the baby has his surname needs to be made aware of the weak foundations on which his insistence and refusal to agree rests.

Saving a relationship with a vad man who thinks he is more important than his partner because of his penis is not the priority here.

Sometimes it is right to be absolutely lear about your boundaries.

And an argument with an intransigent sexist who is treating you as a incubator is one of those times.

If he doesn't find reality (that he legally gas NO say) then maybe he will appreciate that treating his partner as his equal is in his own interests.

Doesn't say much for him as a person or a parent that he is trying to bully his pregnant partner like this.

But maybe this is the only time he has ever been sexist and tried to push his own agenda at his partner's expense and he thinks of her as an equal in all other ways.

[oldbirdy]

Mrs Joyless I would hope they will be in partnerships that are equal, married or not. I would not be sympathetic to them if they avoided marriage with the purpose of avoiding the legal ramifications and protections it affords. However in this instance if the OP were married, that would be protective of the male interest as the OP would not be able to even consider registering the child without the father's name on the certificate in order to ensure she gets the forename she wants.

It is also possible that in any partnership the woman is the partner who is anti- marriage.

[MrsJoyless]

Oldbirdy maybe remind your sons about the legal position when they say, "Oh we're not going to get married, it's only a piece of paper".

[user1477734532]

*her - sorry!

[stonygreysoil]

Doinitfine there is nothing wrong with your assessment of the gender politics of naming outside of marriage. The OP should certainly make it her business to have her surname in her DD's surname [unless she is herself happy with it as a middle name].

And like any normal couple, the DP needs to be reminded to grow up and accept an agreed first name.

There is a great deal wrong with your shoot from the hip application of this to a real life situation, based on the scantiest of briefing [ from one side] and projecting all sorts of emotions and viewpoints onto the DP and seriously advising talking about legalities. Basically pressing the escalation up to 100 button on the dispute ( which we stll have absolutely no idea about the scale of BTW)

[user1477734532]

I can't believe that some people agree with the partner!

OP, if he doesn't compromise, you will have to register him (yourself) as there wouldn't be another solution.

[DoinItFine]

Insisting that he should have more of a say because he is a man and therefore more important is not solving this like an adult.

The insistence that women "compromise" while men give nothing is one of the reasons women are so often in weak positions.

He is refusing any of several compromises.

He is insisting on getting his way.

Pointing out to him that he is in no position to insist here is absolutely he right thing to do.

He needs to accept that his child's mother has an equal say over the name.

She is not asking for more than that.

And yet she must "compromise" with the person who is asking for more than his due.

Ridiculous.

It is not up to women to make conversations "adult" when the person they are arguing with is treating them like they don't matter.

[sofato5miles]

He can stand as firm as he likes, but he is being unreasonable, and that will damage the relationship.

There was never a hope in hell of my baby getting my DPs surname unless i was married. That was one of his main drivers in choosing to propose.

[FluffyFluffster]

Doin as I said earlier, what is legal isn't necessarily what's moral.

Pointing out that legally she can do what she likes is definitely threatening behaviour.

[oldbirdy]

Op are you the lady who wants to call your DD Dinah?
I don't really understand some of the responses on this thread.
Your DP isn't really being controversial or a horrific bully; he is being conventional. He expects as tradition that you will agree on a first name and the child will have his surname. However as you aren't married and you haven't taken his surname there is no assumption (in the way he is making) that the child will have his surname.

My opinion is that both of you need to compromise for this child who is 50:50 you and your partner. That means you compromise on your first name choice and he on his surname choice. Quite a few couples i know use 3 first names; the first is a compromise that both like, the second and third a personal choice of each, in the order they flow best . I don't think either of you can 'pull rank' on each other here. A double barrel surname would be included as part of that compromise. In my view starting to pull rank as you are the one pregnant is not very fair; it's not his choice not to carry the baby after all. As a mother of sons I would be horrified if one of my boys was disenfranchised from any choice in the first name his child because he wasn't the one pregnant. I don't think 'being allowed' the surname is quite the same, after all you don't pick a surname out, it isn't a personal choice in the same way.

[stonygreysoil]

nothing says "lets solve this like adults" quite like quoting the legal position at your DP...

“The lawyer's world is entire unto itself, the human pared away.”

[DoinItFine]

She doesn't need to threaten anything.

Just point out that this is legally her decision.

And if the thing he feels strongly about is that a child should not have its mother's surname in any form, then he is a twat.

She is asking for 50% say in the name of their child.

He wants more. He thinks he should have more say than her.

Pointing out that legally he gets no say is entirely reasonable.

His position is aggressive and unfair.

[FluffyFluffster]

I'm not saying she should put up with bullying. I'm saying that the suggestion that she threaten him with going off and refusing to name him as the father so she can do whatever the hell she likes is awful and will destroy her relationship.

Why isn't he allowed to stand firm on something that means a lot to him? Why is it automatically bullying if he stands up for what he wants? I'm not actually commenting on whether he is or not because I don't think there's enough information to tell that he's being anything more than stubborn but this is why they clearly need to have a discussion, especially since the alternative seems to destroy a relationship in an extremely hostile way for lack of communication.

[stonygreysoil]

[DoinItFine]

Yes, a pregnant woman should put up with months of bullying before being so cruel as to inform a man of the reality of his position.

She is the one offering several compromise options that he is rejecting out of hand.

But still she must "sit down" and "be reasonable" in the face of his attempt to name his child with no input from her

When are we going to stop raising women to give in to men's unreasonable demands?

What he is asking for is unreasonable nd unfair and doesn't recognise the child's mother as a 50% parent.

But apparently she would be the devil to do anything but give in gently to his superior claim to the child's name.

[FluffyFluffster]

Ultimately this is not his decision to make. He only gets a say because his partner is giving him one.

It's his child too, his sperm fertilised the egg. The mother does not unilaterally get to bully the father into submission because it 'would serve him well to remember' that it's actually her child and she so graciously allows him to be a part of it

If she starts using the baby as a bargaining chip before it's born then what hope is there really? What needs to happen is a conversation where both sides actually listen to each other and possibly some time to reflect on perspective.

I mentioned it earlier, the OP hasn't actually said what he thinks of the name she's chosen so for all we know, he'll like and agree to it.

[stonygreysoil]

DoinitFine, and now the bounder is a Brexiter as well !!

I think your perspective on the negotiating position is correct in extremis but i would hope we all hope it never comes to that.

We don't know for instance if this is all 3 months of arguments or 30 minutes....

IRL, one would normally preface a chat with [ many, repeated] appeal to common sense as per my suggestion] prior to telling DP their legal rights...

[DoinItFine]

The only people talking about the relationship ending are the ones who think that a man should dump a pregnant woman for insisting on her legal right to a say in her baby's surname.

[DoinItFine]

I'm not suggesting she end the relationship, although I think it is entirely reasonable to call a man who expects to demand a baby not have its mother's surname a wanker.

It's a basic dickhead position.

What I recommended was pointing out to Mr Babyname Brexiter that despite his huffing and puffing, his negotiating position is the weaker one.

Ultimately this is not his decision to make. He only gets a say because his partner is giving him one.

It eould serve him well to remember that.

[stonygreysoil]

DoinItFine, yes, something like 10 lines of text, context free. From which you got "he expects obedience " and lots of talk of "wanker". Wherever that's all coming from, its not from a reasonable reading of the text.

In point of fact, my advice above is not that different to you in terms of names, but i'm not suggesting she end the relationship as an opening gambit.