Your Surname and Your [Hypothetical] Kids

Imhof Tank

cowzerp wrote: »

If my child had not got my surname people would assume that he may not be mine, that sucks and is a no go as far as I'm concerned,

That is exactly the attitude I was referring to in my inital reply above in relation to insecurity

Imhof Tank

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Keane2097 brought Seamus's missus into it - he moved the goalposts

Hmmm, so Keane doing so was acceptable, but me doing it wasn't because it wasn't a mans opinion. Fair enough.

Look, either parent insisting on exclusive naming rights over kids or else the relationship is over is insane.

I completely agree which is why I said:

But surely if the "guy" is insisting to the point that he is falling out with the mother, then the mother must be equally Insistent? So why is it that the man is wrong?

metrovelvet

If you cant come to an agreement flip a coin. Or let one person have this one,and the next biggy the other person can have that one.

speedboatchase

I wouldn't care if my kids have double barrel names, although they do annoy me for two reasons:

1. a lot of american child actors have double barrel names, I'm not basing that on anything other than the show Home Improvement's title credits but every one of those kids did and it was really annoying

2. what happens when two double barrel-named kids grow up and get married, then have to name THEIR KIDS? Exactly, the world probably explodes

UPDATE - the Home Improvement kids have two first names each, not surnames. Which is even lamer

cowzerp

Imhof Tank wrote: »

That is exactly the attitude I was referring to in my inital reply above in relation to insecurity

im far from insecure, but i should not have to explain myself to people over some stupid insecure person changing the way things are to suit themselves, Its the common and normal thing to use the fathers name and your even putting the child in a position of happeniong to explain themselves, its weak men who would accept the mothers name been use imo, grow a pair of nuts and keep things as they always where, my daughter if i have 1 will change her name so its not all about my name, its just changing a good formula for no good reason

Imhof Tank

completely agree which is why I said:


Quote:
But surely if the "guy" is insisting to the point that he is falling out with the mother, then the mother must be equally Insistent? So why is it that the man is wrong?

I did address that point of yours with an example of why this wouldnt necessarily always be the case. I think you posted something along the lines of "point taken"

So, we are agreed on this basically then?

Snowie

I dont think id hold my wife or kids to the fact they have to hold on to my name....

my second name is very unuseual actually its plain strange....
Reason being i got a lot of stick when i was a kid and even at 28 I get some bright spark saying something stupid. I useually turn it around on them.

But I will say that, i love it, tho for a kid it may not be a great thing to have... if i get a Docter qualifaction I think my name would be the coolist damm name ever....:D.... Id sound like a real james bond, villin, actually when i got pulled bye a gaurd thaught I was a dodgey person my name is that unuseual...

mooman

Why change a good formula, any society I can think of off the top of my head uses the fathers name, this gender equality crap is gone too far in the other direction. Damn women take enough off us can't they just let us have this one. If the OP sees it as such a minor thing for the father to drop his name, why is it such a big deal to keep hers. Hypocrite. Oh and double barrel names are ridiculous where does it end, next generation will have 4....:mad:

Imhof Tank

cowzerp wrote: »

im far from insecure, but i should not have to explain myself to people over some stupid insecure person changing the way things are to suit themselves, Its the common and normal thing to use the fathers name and your even putting the child in a position of happeniong to explain themselves, its weak men who would accept the mothers name been use imo, grow a pair of nuts and keep things as they always where, my daughter if i have 1 will change her name so its not all about my name, its just changing a good formula for no good reason

Are you familiar with the expression "wearing the trousers" and is it your opinion that weak men = not "wearing the trousers"?

mooman

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

I dont think id hold my wife or kids to the fact they have to hold on to my name....

my second name is very unuseual actually its plain strange....
Reason being i got a lot of stick when i was a kid and even at 28 I get some bright spark saying something stupid. I useually turn it around on them.

But I will say that, i love it, tho for a kid it may not be a great thing to have... if i get a Docter qualifaction I think my name would be the coolist damm name ever....:D.... Id sound like a real james bond, villin, actually when i got pulled bye a gaurd thaught I was a dodgey person my name is that unuseual...

What is it:D

Herbal Deity

seamus wrote: »

I can see how you can easily apply the same "betrayal" criteria to a woman, but it's a conditioning thing - women have by and large been brought up to expect that it's OK to change your surname without betraying your family. Men haven't.

seamus wrote: »

I can also state quite unequivocably that my wife wears the metaphorical trousers and everyone knows it.

Were you not equally conditioned to be the one who "wears the trousers" in relationships? Do you not feel you're "betraying" your manliness? If not, then why do you feel so strongly about your surname, but not this?

Imhof Tank

mooman wrote: »

Why change a good formula, any society I can think of off the top of my head uses the fathers name, this gender equality crap is gone too far in the other direction. Damn women take enough off us can't they just let us have this one. If the OP sees it as such a minor thing for the father to drop his name, why is it such a big deal to keep hers. Hypocrite. Oh and double barrel names are ridiculous where does it end, next generation will have 4....:mad:

Do you actually believe that?

If you do, you have insecurity issues

Edit: I think you may be confusing the OP in this thread with the female OP in the PI thread

cowzerp

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Are you familiar with the expression "wearing the trousers" and is it your opinion that weak men = not "wearing the trousers"?

We have a 50-50 situation going on, i am the man and do manly things-i change the light bulb's! i drill holes in stuff, i carry the heavy stuff up stairs and get Xmas decorations from the attic, we both earn money to pay our bills, i usually hold the remote, then put on what she asks for!

I never said i wear the trousers but i am the man of the house, she wears trousers to work most days and i wear shorts most days so maybe she is the 1 that wears the trousers.

DeVore

Because "the norm" doesnt need a reason. Changing from the norm usually DOES.

In this case, changing from the norm for the sheer pique of "feminism/equality" seems bloodyminded and would hurt that the person I had "married" couldnt see beyond the end of their nose.

DeV.

Imhof Tank

cowzerp wrote: »

We have a 50-50 situation going on.

Thats pretty much my own situation - which is why I dont see why the fuss over the exclusive naming rights.

pickarooney

DeVore wrote: »

I'm Tom Murphy, my father was Tom Murphy, my grandfather was Tom Murphy. If I had a son, I'd want VERY VERY much to name him Tom and have his surname "Murphy".


DeV.

I find that really weird. Apart from the obvious confusion it would generate, why would you want to forego your (plural) right to name your own children and their rights to be named individially and not just "generic boy child version 3.0"?

I wanted our kids to have my girlfriend's last name as hers is dying out (only about 10 of them left in the world) but she wanted them to have mine (there are about 30 million of us). I wasn't bothered arguing so they have mine.

Imhof Tank

DeVore wrote: »

Because "the norm" doesnt need a reason. Changing from the norm usually DOES.

In this case, changing from the norm for the sheer pique of "feminism/equality" seems bloodyminded and would hurt that the person I had "married" couldnt see beyond the end of their nose.

DeV.

Dunno, I wouldnt make the assumption that a woman looking for her surname to feature somewhere in her childs name was doing so in a fit of pique. If she claimed it was just something she wanted for some reason which had nothig to do with the femininist agenda, would you believe her and might that make a difference?

DeVore

I like and value tradition, I guess I'm a freak

DeV.

seamus

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Were you not equally conditioned to be the one who "wears the trousers" in relationships? Do you not feel you're "betraying" your manliness? If not, then why do you feel so strongly about your surname, but not this?

No, like most Irish men I came from a family where the mother was in charge at home, so that's how my family life has continued

The whole wearing the trousers bit is a joke, like most people. I'm under no illusion that I will defer to my wife's wishes on most things which don't matter to me - i.e. I don't try to enforce my will unless I have a particular opinion on something, in which case it'll be discussed and we'll come to a mutual arrangement.

The family surname and patriarchal dominance within a relationship are completely and utterly unrelated.

DeVore wrote: »

Because "the norm" doesnt need a reason. Changing from the norm usually DOES.

In this case, changing from the norm for the sheer pique of "feminism/equality" seems bloodyminded and would hurt that the person I had "married" couldnt see beyond the end of their nose.

Well, that's what got me. One woman in a thread made a comment that she wanted the kids to have her name because the tradition of man's surname is a vestige of patriarchal dominance. Is that a reason to get rid of it? Of course not. The English language is a vestige of english rule in Ireland, does that mean we're betraying our Irish ancestors by continuing to speak it? Of course not.
Baby != bathwater.

pickarooney

mooman wrote: »

Why change a good formula, any society I can think of off the top of my head uses the fathers name, this gender equality crap is gone too far in the other direction. Damn women take enough off us can't they just let us have this one. If the OP sees it as such a minor thing for the father to drop his name, why is it such a big deal to keep hers. Hypocrite. Oh and double barrel names are ridiculous where does it end, next generation will have 4....:mad:

Spain, Portugal, pretty much all of South/Central America, Finland, Iceland and even Ireland in the dim and distant past all use(d) matronyms.

Imhof Tank

DeVore wrote: »

I like and value tradition, I guess I'm a freak

DeV.

No, but you're probably better off with a traditional gal

DeVore

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Dunno, I wouldnt make the assumption that a woman looking for her surname to feature somewhere in her childs name was doing so in a fit of pique. If she claimed it was just something she wanted for some reason which had nothig to do with the femininist agenda, would you believe her and might that make a difference?

Yes, if there was a genuine reason why it would make sense for them to have her name, a good reason mind you, then I would be fine with it, perhaps a little dissappointed but yeah, ok...

I can think of several where *she* might have good reason to retain her name (famous author, or some conflict between her first name and my surname etc) and that would be all cool, but the kids... I cant think of a reason for the kids not to have my name.

DeV.

Imhof Tank

DeVore wrote: »

Yes, if there was a genuine reason why it would make sense for them to have her name, a good reason mind you, then I would be fine with it, perhaps a little dissappointed but yeah, ok...

I can think of several where *she* might have good reason to retain her name (famous author, or some conflict between her first name and my surname etc) and that would be all cool, but the kids... I cant think of a reason for the kids not to have my name.

DeV.

How about if she had an extremely rare surname, was the last one of her generation etc or something like that, and wanted (for possibly silly, sentamental reasons which although you didnt agree with, you could understand were genuine) a double barrel handle for the kids, would you be open to that at all?

Snowie

mooman wrote: »

What is it:D

Doctor Munday;)

dan719

I remember a similar thread ages ago on TLL. TBH my opinion has changed since then. If my partner was an only child, I think I would be happy enough for the children to take her name, since otherwise the name would possibly be wiped out. Otherwise, I'm not so sure.

spurious

If we want to go down the tradition route, in Irish-speaking Ireland it was quite common for children, particularly male children, to have reference to their mother's name in theirs.

If we want to go down the 'surviving genes' route, then 'Mommy's baby. Daddy's? Maybe.' means it makes more sense to take the mother's name.

In inner city Dublin, it's quite common for children to have two surnames and use them interchangeably.

There are far more important things to be worried about where children are involved.

Lana80

I insisted on my child having my surname alone.I'm a single parent and figured if he was the single parent my name wouldn't get a look in.I also didnt want to burden my child with a double barrelled name and have to explain it.

NinjaTruncs

We're letting Eircom decide, My surname only has two hits in the phone book, hers has 2478. So there is a greater need for our kids to take my name.

vicecreamsundae

if i ever got married i would never take my partner's name or expect them to take mine and i find it quite strange that such a sexist tradition is still so common.
if i get married, ideally i would choose a new family name with my partner that we would both take, and that any children would take, but obviously that's something we would have to discuss.

Kournikova

Is a double barrell not required on a passport if both parents don't have the same name, so that both parents can take the child abroad without hassle.

So if the parents are called Smith and Ryan then the children couldn't just be one because then they would need a whole consent form thingy to take them abroad.

pickarooney

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

if i ever got married i would never take my partner's name or expect them to take mine and i find it quite strange that such a sexist tradition is still so common.
if i get married, ideally i would choose a new family name with my partner that we would both take, and that any children would take, but obviously that's something we would have to discuss.

You'd make it nigh on impossible for future generations to trace their family trees.

metrovelvet

Kournikova wrote: »

Is a double barrell not required on a passport if both parents don't have the same name, so that both parents can take the child abroad without hassle.

So if the parents are called Smith and Ryan then the children couldn't just be one because then they would need a whole consent form thingy to take them abroad.

No.THe name on the passport has nothing to do with consent.

Davidius

I don't really care if she does or doesn't keep her name but I'd be more than a little annoyed if my kids didn't have my name.

Yes you can always just tack on a hyphen between the two names but honestly I think that makes it sound fairly stupid. Other than that I think there's certain connotations associated with it and I'd prefer if people didn't get the wrong idea.

Anyhow I like it as a tradition and don't really see a good non-situational reason to be against it. It's what most people do and just going along with it will save a bit of confusion.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

I'm an only child and I have no cousins with the same surname as me, just me and my da so I definately want my children(if I have any) to take my name. I love my name, it's also one of the seven names of Laois.:D

KnifeWRENCH

My surname doesn't really mean anything to me, which is just aswell. I'm the only son in my family (have 2 older sisters, one of whom is already married and has a son) and I never plan on having kids, so my family name is going to die with me unless my other sister gives it to her hypothetical kids. It doesn't bother me, and I don't think it will bother my parents either. My Dad will probably be more disappointed that I don't want children than the thought of his surname "dying".

NTMK

Personally i dont care about my surname apart from the fact everyone calls me by it and i wouldn't care if my kids took it or not.
The less of a connection to my (so called) fathers side of the family the better

vicecreamsundae

pickarooney wrote: »

You'd make it nigh on impossible for future generations to trace their family trees.

i don't think so, it's not as if there would be no records of the name change, or of my previous name.

Macha

While I see the advantages of a family name, I don't think men have an automatic right to the wife and/or children taking his surname.

Then again, all these things are personal. My boyfriend knows I won't be taking his surname. We still have to discuss what surname the children will have - heh

Would any men here take their wife's surname and if not, would they expect their wife to take their surname?

Nevyn

I know men who have taken thier wife's name, legal they can do so when they get married.
In most cases it was due to the wife's family name being rare and in one case I know of his family name would have been too hard to pronounce for post people living here due to be flemish so he took her family name and the children have it also.