The surname

up for anything wrote: »

Your assertion would be interesting if you backed it up with facts and reasoning rather than just just a bare I think.

Why should giving the child the mother's surname not be in the best interests of the child? That doesn't make an iota of sense.

Because the fact is kids have to deal with other kids. While we might like to pretend that it's possible for every child to be a total individual and not suffer because of it, this simply isn't true. And while I agree the only way to make progress is to make changes I don't see how this one is important enough that it should cause any child anywhere even one second of self-consciousness or hurt.

The reason I say the people arguing for this are arguing for their own interests is simply down to the fact that I don't see any children who are unhappy with the way things are done right now.

Kids like to see their father as masculine hero, granted young boys more so. All I'm trying to say is as a kid I wouldn't have liked to have to explain to this situation to other children my age. I truly don't see the harm in leaving well enough alone in this case

IsThisIt??? wrote: »

Because the fact is kids have to deal with other kids. While we might like to pretend that it's possible for every child to be a total individual and not suffer because of it, this simply isn't true. And while I agree the only way to make progress is to make changes I don't see how this one is important enough that it should cause any child anywhere even one second of self-consciousness or hurt.

The reason I say the people arguing for this are arguing for their own interests is simply down to the fact that I don't see any children who are unhappy with the way things are done right now.

Kids like to see their father as masculine hero, granted young boys more so. All I'm trying to say is as a kid I wouldn't have liked to have to explain to this situation to other children my age. I truly don't see the harm in leaving well enough alone in this case

I really don't think the others kids would notice or care that a child has their mother's surname.

It's hopeless.
I give up.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Just out of interest because it never effects you: how would men on here feel about changing their name to another's?

Would have no problem with my wife not choosing to take my name if it came up, but the idea of doing it the other way does seem strange. I think though that's a lot because it's socially unusual at the moment if it were done — If a man takes his wife's name, he's doing it as a statement.

If it was the 'traditionally done thing' (vice versa), I'd say I wouldn't have a problem with kids taking her name, but possibly would still keep my own. Hard to say though!

Double Barrel Names = Unstable/Unmarried.

Fathers have little to no rights and now there is arguing about the surname? What next? Will disgruntled women demand that we find a way to remove our DNA from "their children"?

My wife and I had our first born before we got married and my surname was given. He wasn't given my first name, as I think that's just a bit egotistical imo. Double barrel names are like a stamp on a child to say that their mammy and daddy are either, unmarried, uncommitted, or broken up. If the father runs away before the birth, then the mothers surname is only rightly given to the child, but otherwise it should be default daddy name.

Men and women have enough to argue about.

its just bloody tradition. there's no secret agenda against women. men dont plot these things, and women arent at a
disadvantage if they choose (yes there's a choice) their partners name. its just a way of showing you're both integrating your families together.

whats the next cry for womens rights? that they're forced to wear white dresses at weddings?

i suppose that its a good thing that women have to clutch at straws to try and show they're discriminated against. it shows we are truly equal.

lounakin wrote: »

I refuse to take my husband's name, and our baby has both last names, mine first.
I don't see the issue with double surnames, and when she grows up she can do as she pleases. I am very proud of my family name, it's got history and it's almost unique and I'm not going to just abandon it just because I chose a partner.

I have done the very same, though we are not married. There is no way the kids were going to just have their Dad's surname. I love my surname, and doubt I would have given it up if we'd ever married.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Nothing to do with celebration or worthiness. I've already explained why it makes sense. You'd be more likely to understand if you thought about it rationally instead of assuming some sort of sexism where there is none.

Of course, until very recently there were no DNA tests, not long before that there was no effective birth control. The only line that you can be sure of is the maternal one. A mixing bowl as far as the genes are concerned, but the only really solid line on a family tree.