When we got married, my wife took my name. She wanted to. Had she wanted to keep her old name, then that would have been fine. I wouln't have been keen on a double barrelling of our names - that just seems like being awkward for the sake of it.
We have a daughter. If my wife had kept her old name, and had wanted our daughter to have the same name, then that would have been OK also. It just doesn't matter to me. However, I would have been less likely to have developed a deep, meaningful relationship with someone who insisted on such a thing.
The only reason for everyone in the family having a common name is because it is "normal" and conventional, so I'm happy to go along with that. It makes life easier. It just isn't important.
As i have a daughter, and if she follows the norm and marries and has children, and chooses to take her husbands name, then I expect my name will die. So what?
We have a daughter. If my wife had kept her old name, and had wanted our daughter to have the same name, then that would have been OK also. It just doesn't matter to me. However, I would have been less likely to have developed a deep, meaningful relationship with someone who insisted on such a thing.
The only reason for everyone in the family having a common name is because it is "normal" and conventional, so I'm happy to go along with that. It makes life easier. It just isn't important.
If it isn't important, why would you be less likely to develop a relationship with someone who didn't want themselves and any kids to take your name?
I don't and won't have kids so I don't really have an opinion, except that most of the arguments for kids-should-take-the-guy's-name seem to be pretty dodgy. But I don't have much patience for people doing things because tradition at the best of times, so...
Can we come up with a gender-neutral naming convention that doesn't prioritise one partner above another other, keeps a link between family members, and doesn't get too unwieldy (like when two double-barrelled people marry and the world explodes)? It's harder than it seems like it should be.
Can we come up with a gender-neutral naming convention that doesn't prioritise one partner above another other, keeps a link between family members, and doesn't get too unwieldy (like when two double-barrelled people marry and the world explodes)? It's harder than it seems like it should be.
Alternatively, we could just leave a perfectly workable and accepted tradition in place.
Alternatively, we could just leave a perfectly workable and accepted tradition in place.
You don't get to decide all on your own whether a tradition is workable and accepted. If lots of other people neither accept it nor think it's workable, then it's not workable and accepted.
Can we come up with a gender-neutral naming convention that doesn't prioritise one partner above another other, keeps a link between family members, and doesn't get too unwieldy (like when two double-barrelled people marry and the world explodes)? It's harder than it seems like it should be.
We can look anyone up if we want to see their ancestry, so we don't really need to carry all that junk around in our names like our ancestors did.
If it isn't important, why would you be less likely to develop a relationship with someone who didn't want themselves and any kids to take your name?
I don't and won't have kids so I don't really have an opinion, except that most of the arguments for kids-should-take-the-guy's-name seem to be pretty dodgy. But I don't have much patience for people doing things because tradition at the best of times, so...
The problem wouldn't be that she wanted our child to have her name, but it would be if her priorities were such that this was critical. I doubt that I would develop close feelings for someone with such a skewed view of what was important IMO.
The problem wouldn't be that she wanted our child to have her name, but it would be if her priorities were such that this was critical. I doubt that I would develop close feelings for someone with such a skewed view if what was important IMO.
Not important to me at all. I've had a son, he currently carries my surname but if he announced tomorrow that he's having gender re-assignment surgery and from now on wants to be known as Mindy McMinge then i'd buy him a pint or a babycham and get on with things, if he's happy i'm happy!
My husband is the only one left to carry on his family name. His only uncle had 2 daughters who took on their husbands names so it stopped there and my husband only has a sister who also changed her name when she got married. When I was pregnant with my first child we found out form the scan it was a boy and my husband's grandfather was overjoyed. It was bittersweet as the grandfather passed away when I was about 7 months along but he was thrilled to know his surname was being carried on.
Not life and death or very serious but for me it would be important in terms of my family.
The present ones and those who are 6ft under carried the name for generations across Ireland, UK, America and Australia. I would like to think I'm part of a long chain passing it along to the next generation.
You don't get to decide all on your own whether a tradition is workable and accepted. If lots of other people neither accept it nor think it's workable, then it's not workable and accepted.
Well, the overwhelming majority of the population are perfectly happy with the tradition and it's not likely to end anytime soon just because a few militant feminists don't like it.
It wasn't even discussed between my husband and I - I took his name happily. I like being called 'Mrs'. You can view it as ownership, I look at it as belonging to. I'm more than happy that its apparent that I am his wife and he is my husband.
Comments
Male ownership of the wife is why some men insist her taking their name in marriage and the children likewise.
We`re in the 21st century now people can do whatever they wish
We have a daughter. If my wife had kept her old name, and had wanted our daughter to have the same name, then that would have been OK also. It just doesn't matter to me. However, I would have been less likely to have developed a deep, meaningful relationship with someone who insisted on such a thing.
The only reason for everyone in the family having a common name is because it is "normal" and conventional, so I'm happy to go along with that. It makes life easier. It just isn't important.
As i have a daughter, and if she follows the norm and marries and has children, and chooses to take her husbands name, then I expect my name will die. So what?
I don't and won't have kids so I don't really have an opinion, except that most of the arguments for kids-should-take-the-guy's-name seem to be pretty dodgy. But I don't have much patience for people doing things because tradition at the best of times, so...
Alternatively, we could just leave a perfectly workable and accepted tradition in place.
Why?
It used to be tradition to do many things, but we have developed.
We can look anyone up if we want to see their ancestry, so we don't really need to carry all that junk around in our names like our ancestors did.
With a name like Jboobs, I am not surprised:o
The problem wouldn't be that she wanted our child to have her name, but it would be if her priorities were such that this was critical. I doubt that I would develop close feelings for someone with such a skewed view of what was important IMO.
Is your surname classed as important then?
Not at all.
The present ones and those who are 6ft under carried the name for generations across Ireland, UK, America and Australia. I would like to think I'm part of a long chain passing it along to the next generation.
Well, the overwhelming majority of the population are perfectly happy with the tradition and it's not likely to end anytime soon just because a few militant feminists don't like it.
This particular tradition is highly unlikely to change since there is no real need for change.
The alternative is a population of children with pretentious doubled-barrelled names.
If the alternative was the reality it wouldn't be pretentious any more, because it'd be the norm.
But separately, there's no real need for change because the men who don't care about it don't need to permeate the tradition if they so see fit.
Plus my surname now is not my birth surname anyway I changed it years ago
I didn't insist on it really, but we both accepted that it's generally the done thing for a child to take their father's surname.
For anyone to claim it's sexist and backwards is just feminist bull crap.