If it's the woman who carries the children around for 9 months and, more often than not, does more...?

Question

of the child rearing after they're born, then why exactly should they kids get HIS last name?

This is a new catch phrase of "compromising" men..."If she wants to keep her last name, she can hyphenate it...but the kids have to have MY last name."

Who ever decided that the children whom grow inside her womb and whom she sat at home with while her husband worked (i'm talking prior to women entering the workforce on a large scale) would have HIS last name anyway?

Men is my guess. And because they said so! And now what they "said" has become "tradition," which is the new argument.

Is this another example of our totally non-oppressive, non-male favoring patriarchal society?

Answer 1

Yeah, its kind of ridiculous, huh? A long time ago, children were called their "father's son" or their "father's daughter."



I mean, if I'm married and we're a family, then I would want us all to have the same name, but maybe it should be my name, not automatically his.

Answer 2

We'll let's see: Biologically speaking - both sexes donate haploid cells, contribute the same number of genes and genetic material, and thus the baby is created from the unity and equality of two people. So from this we can state that both parents have a claim on the child to be. From a sociological standpoint it dates back to ancient history when the roles made a logical shift that went completely out of whack. Strictly speaking men became the primary hunter/gather party because children until the age of five (if they hadn't died yet) had to be watched and fed - which is where female biology comes in with the whole breast milk standpoint. By the time women were done giving birth to babies and the children that were alive were old enough to look after themselves, they were no longer physical fit enough to rejoin the hunter/gather or they just didn't feel they belonged there any more. (You ever try to kill a wild boar? That's a thing that will probably kill you if you're not careful.) Throw in a few political minds, a few view shifts, and there you start to have the inequality of the sexes as civilizations continues to grow and collapse, spring up, collapse again, and so on, so forth. One thing we have carried throughout history and social development is the unconscious idea of joining the husband's family. This was probably brought about due to many ancient civilizations idea of power and hereditary being passed down through the mother instead of the father. Ancient Egyptian pharaohs use to marry their sisters because the power would be with her - and the whole "keeping the money in the family" shtick. The Hebrew text even mentions that a child's religion is passed down through the mother. Now my only problem with your argument is that you seem to start addressing things that happened in the 19th century (or later) and apply it to our society now as if it has any real bearing on your point. You want to make a point that women are oppressed in some shape or form because the children she bears ends up with her husband's name and that is some example of sexism. Well it is an example of sexism but not as you would hope. You have two people who have contributed genetic code, who are raising this child together (hopefully), and who - today - each share a part in the financial burden. This is a pretty even field. Now you give one partner nine months to harbor this little being, who connects and feels for this thing more than anyone has been able to accurately describe, and has that instant chemical bonding once this tiny human has come into being. It's intimate when you share your body in bed but to share your body, your nutrients, and your whole being to a growing someone for nine months? This is where women break the even playing field with a whooping advantage. Not only does she do all of this but she continues to share her body until it's time for solid food. Men don't get this kind of connection, not on that kind of level. Aside for contributing genetic code and financial/rearing responsibilities, there is NOTHING connecting him to this child. EXCEPT for the name. A woman will always be able to recognize her child as hers for the fact that she had carried them for so long and there's the funny chemical bond but a man will always be able to recognize the child as his through the fact that the child bears the family name (his). We can stomp around in high stilettos and claim oppression and sexism at every little thing. Honestly, if we argued enough out of it, men wouldn't be able to win the argument because we'd make it seem like every little thing they do or say is sexist. We can cry out "what about the maiden name - what about MY family name" (though I find it funny because it's more than likely your father's name), in the end it's just a name. A woman doesn't need a last name or the idea of a legacy to recognize her child. For a woman, it's NOT important - but for an overzealous feminist, it becomes something else to argue about. Feminism is about EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, not the condemnation and humiliation of one sex simply because they have a penis.

Answer 3

wow talk about making a big deal about nothing. so what if people always tend to lean towards the men's last name for the children its not that the women never have a say in it. Its just in most marriages the woman already has taken the last name of the husband its just easier that way. and if the kid doesn't like it? then in 18 years they can have their name legally changed. Here's a question for you. You and your husband have a baby girl or boy. you both decide to have your last name be the last name of the baby. The baby grows up marries a man or woman and it decides to change its name to its husband's or wife's last name. so is there really any point in getting all uptight about this when in a matter of 25 to 30 years your child might not have yours or his last name anymore? i don't think so.

Answer 4

Personally, I believe it is a good idea for children to have their father's last name. It helps to strengthen the bond between father and children.



it is precisely BECAUSE women carry the chlld in their bodies that they don't need the children to have their name. The bond between mother and child does not need strengthening in the same way. it's there automatically, because you have borne the child.



And women have always been in the workforce. Plenty of women never had the option to 'sit at home' as you put it, with the children. Many women had to leave their children in the care of others while they toiled in factories and sweatshops, or the children worked alongside them. the Industrial Revolution was built on the labour of women and children, it would not have happened othrwise. 'Sitting at home' was a luxury not available to most women. Many would have been grateful to be able to sit at home, but were not given the opportunity.

Answer 5

You make no reference to the marriage contract so your whole argument is flawed and ridiculous.



Children DO take their mother's last name. If the father is not married to the mother, children take the mother's last name. This is the default position that is only altered by the agreements made under the marriage contract. If the situation is as you describe and the man simply has sex with the woman and leaves, then the children will bear the mother's last name



However, when a man and a woman get married, the woman agrees to bear the man's children, and the man agrees to claim those children, recognize them as his own and to support and protect them and the mother. As part of this, the children take the father's last name, so that they are recognize ably his.



Your whining about fairness is simply a desire to strip the man of what he gains from the marriage deal, or part of it anyway. It doesn't particularly matter, as the benefits that accrue to men through marriage are systematically removed, marriage rates will continue to plummet.



Of course women are unable to see any connection between men's increasing unwillingness to marry and their constant attempts to redefine the terms of the marriage contract to benefit them more and the husband less.

Answer 6

Being pregnant doesn't mean you get to name the child. Sorry. It's true that society isn't fair, but neither is nature. You aren't any more of a parent to the child because you delivered him.



I think it should be decided by the couple, I don't think it should automatically be the woman's name, which is what you seem to be suggesting.



To answer your original question, it's because the father's, more often than not, are out in the work force, and are more connected to the outside world than the child rearing wife. So having family lineage traced through the father's side allows for a child to take advantage of his namesake.



Of course, like I said, I believe that in this day and age, people should decide for themselves.



Edit: Well then, I agree with that, but sadly the men WILL be looked down upon, so it does make sense not to want that at this point. However, most people wouldn't want it out of sexism.

Answer 7

Well hate to brake it to you, but you answered your own damn question.



"That's not what I'm saying Adam. I'm saying it's ridiculous that the vast majority of men in this country WON'T even consider allowing the woman to give the kids her name...heck"



I'm saying it's ridiculous that the vast majority of women in this country WON'T even consider dating a man if he doesn't pay for the date.



Looks pretty close to me.



So the conclusion is that the vast majority of both sexes are pigs???



The real question is, do you try to fix your gender, and bash men, or do you really want to fix both, and help everyone?

Answer 8

Typical feminist. There is plenty of injustice against women....you have to make something up.



How exactly are you so poor and repressed? YOU have sole naming rights over any child, you don't have to give your child the fathers name its solely up to you. You have all the rights yet the man is expected to have 50% of the responsibility. Oh yeah, definitely favoring men there.



Your justification for this is you carried the baby for a whole 9 months. Whoop-de-do. He will be paying for YOUR choice for 18 years.



So yes this is why people are turning a way from feminism, because sadly too many are simply screwed up man haters who wine about being repressed when they have 100% of the rights.



But please continue because the more times people post stuff like this, the more people will see what mainstream feminism is all about. My sincerest sorrow to real feminists who want REAL equality and to fight REAL problems.



Grow up.

Answer 9

I think you're trolling but to answer the question, so what? You're last name is still a man's name isn't it?





I'm tired of you feminists, you people claim to be fighting for women, yet all you do is whine and cry and throw hissy fit tantrums. It makes me feel ashamed.

Answer 10

I do see where you're coming from. It would make sense since the woman carries the baby for 9+ months and gives birth for the children to take her name. Sure, women need men to reproduce, but the baby relies much more heavily on its mother for survival. The baby's life depends on its mother - what she eats, what she does, how she feels during pregnancy. Plus, women are putting their own lives on the line giving birth, for there are still women that die in childbirth.



The tradition of taking the father's last name stems from patriarchy's needs to claim ownership. For the longest time, women and children were property of men. Why people still carry on this archaic tradition is beyond me, as I thought this was the 21st century. I thought we're supposed to be moving forward and not backwards.



I have a solution. Children should get both parents' names, in a hyphenated form or non-hyphenated form as they do in Spain or Puerto Rico. I feel this would be the best compromise. What made me extremely happy the other day was reading in the newspaper of a man and a woman who both hyphenated their names when they married; now, that's what I call a man who is open-minded and all for equality. Now, if only more men would follow in his footsteps...

Answer 11

and the gender bending continues...

Yes it's mostly just tradition. If you think about the "right" of it, I don't see that men really have a claim to that, and neither do women have the claim to make the name purely their own maiden name.



But asking a man to relinquish this privilege that men worldwide claim would be asking him to be emasculated socially. Should things be so? Perhaps not, but the truth of the matter is that I would look at a guy who gave up his right to put his name on his progeny as a pussy-whipped girly-man; and I know I'm not alone in this line of thinking.



And following the logic of hyphenated names, who wants to be known as Jeremy Higgins-Love-Johnson-Peters-Wilcox-Shenanigan-Volvo?



I don't mean to be offensive in the least btw.

Answer 12

It's funny how women only like traditional stuff when it benefits them e.g. men should buy the expensive diamond ring; men should get on their knee and propose; chivalry; "ladies first" etc..etc.. BUT traditions that show respect for men and fathers need to be done away with..



LOL! Blatant hypocrisy.

Answer 13

They need it as a consolation because in their children's lives, they will always come in second place. Just throw them the bone.

Answer 14

I don't get it either, I wouldn't care about my kids not having my last name. It's just a name, you would love them even if they were called "Jenna Taylia" or "Fanny McButtcheeks".

Answer 15

Because women still expect men to pay for their children. Until those women can take care of children all on their own without leeching off of men for money, they shouldn't whine about it.

Answer 16

wow, you feminists sure are an ego-maniacal bunch. Me, me, me, I, I, I, I want this, my, my, my. You sound like a bunch of spoiled little brats. My body, my choice, my womb, my abortion, my career, my kids, my money, and on and on. I'll tell you this, the past certainly wasn't perfect, not by a long shot, but it has gotten us to this point. 10000 years at minimum, and now all of a sudden you've got all the answers? Doesn't soudn like it. Do us a favour, find a nice girl, get artificially inseminated, and carry on with your pathetic bitterness. cheers.



who you trying to kid, all you feminists want to do is turn those parasitic clumps of snot into medical waste. You'd prob be demanding them to kiss your feet cause you did em a favour by letting them live. Sorry sweetie, please, don't ever have kids. Don't do that to them.

Answer 17

Kids should have the father's name The mother carries the kid so why not let the dad give him his name & carry on the legacy?

Answer 18

I am a firm believer that children should not have to have their father's last name when half the time these men don't stick around.



I have my father's last name, a man who I see about every 3 or 4 years. Why should I carry the name of someone who chooses to pretend I don't exist?



If I ever do have kids I am not giving them their father's last name unless we are in a very committed relationship. The only problem is that I wouldn't give them my last name because I don't care too much for my father and I can't give them my mother's last name because she is an evil, verbally and emotionally abusive *****.



Huuuuuu! What's a girl to do?!

Answer 19

Women commit paternity fraud.



Having his name is just a way of giving him some peace of mind.





I'm sorry that giving men peace of mind upsets the feminist hate mongers.

Answer 20

in some countries, the kids acquire both last names.

Answer 21

I agree our womb, are work afterward, our name.

Answer 22

WTF? I've had 3 kids & their last names were MY choice!!