No not all "father"s deserve to even be called such. Yes, some dads are everything Sebastunes mentioned but they are fewer than believed. I had my father's last name and he did none of the above. Paying child support does not give you the right to do much... Luckily my children have a DAD - and I am proud they have his last name.
Those are frightening statistics. At the moment, it's hard for me to imagine giving up my last name. It's not very common and whenever I hear it my ears prick up. It's MY last name. It's part of me and it's something I've been used to for 22 years and counting. Also, since my father died I feel like it's one of the only things I have of his. My mother didn't take his name and I have no siblings. I'm not saying 'never' and may very well take my (potential) husband's name. My last name isn't the softest, sweetest last name I've ever heard and I certainly don't oppose the idea. It's a nice gesture of love and dedication. But it is an outdated tradition and I think it'd be nice if more men considered taking their wife's or hyphenating. John Lennon did!
I will take my husbands last name because mine is too long and complicated. I like my boyfriend's last name
I always thought I would have a hard time changing my last name because it is very Irish (Bailey) and I'm very proud of that part of me, but then I met and am now engaged to a man with an equally Irish last name (Burke), so no biggie! I won't even have to change my initials!
Hmm. In my ideal world, women wouldn't change their names at marriage, but I think choice is the key. It is a property issue. Right now, a woman (traditionally) has her father's name until she gets her husband's. She doesn't get an identity that isn't an extension of a man. I think that daughters should carry their mother's last names at birth, and sons should have their father's, assuming said male is present. It would simplify things. That said, I took my husband's name at our wedding. And yes, the change is a hassle. However, my family and I are on very bad terms, and my in-laws practically adopted me before my husband and I were even a couple. My mother, with my father's last name, is the head of the household, and has emotionally abused her six daughters and our father for over thirty years. I wanted to have no connection to her whatsoever. My husband and his family have been helping me separate from her. Taking their name was a huge release for me. But I will never answer to "Mrs." anything. I will accept "Ms.," but I really prefer "Madam." Don't ask me why.
It should definitely be a choice. It is absurd to make something like that a legal requirement, or to say that a woman can't take the last name. It should be between the couple and a choice that they make. Personally I love my last name and I am proud of my Scottish heritage so I would hate to lose it. But it is also really long so I'd hate to hyphenate... not sure what I'll do actually!
So... she should be her mother's property? Adopt her mother's identity? And how is this better? :toetap05:
Hmm I wouldnt change my last name only cause of the hassle but im not thinking marriage. its just a certificate stating you're married. whoop de do
Would you rather we invent an entirely new surname name for her? No surname? When you think about it, we're all property until our eighteenth birthdays. I was thinking for the tracing of lineage, though: Female through female, and male through male.
I told my sweetheart that I'd only marry if the partner was worth changing my name. I kept my adoptive father's name, twice. It's not a particularly stellar name, and got loads of insults as a kid. But it is my way of really looking at a third and final legal partnership closely and seriously.
I wouldn't rather anything. I was only playing devil's advocate. Thank you for clarifying. At first glance, it seemed kind of hypocritical to me that you opposed ownership only if it was a man owning a girl, and not if it was a woman owning a girl- that it was unfair that a girl would carry her father's "identity" rather than her mother's, which I saw as the same: she still has no identity of her own regardless. So under your system, the boys would be named after the fathers and the girls would be named after the mothers. Interesting. Don't some people do this anyway if the father is not involved in the child's life? I have heard of such cases where the mother gives the child her own name.
I think that in some cultures, this is the norm. In Hispanic cultures (according to my professor), both sexes get both parents names, but the mothers' name only gets passed on for one generation. So I assume it would be more like getting the maternal grandfather's name, IF I understood her correctly.
to be a legal requirment would be ridiculous... However its a tradition i think is sweet. To marry is to become family. And in most cases the only reason you have the last name you were born with is because your mother took her mans name, so why shouldnt you?
I think making it a legal requirement to change names is stupid. Just as stupid as the law in the old country my ancestors came from was. A couple (few) hundred years ago, my ancestors had to change their last name ( by law) when they bought a new piece of property, to the name of the person they bought it from. The person who sold the land also had to change their name to the former owners name of the new place they bought. As someone said earlier in this thread, it is about being property of someone; or in the case of a different culture in a different era, the property of a piece of property. Brings a new perspetive to asking where the 'Smiths' live and be told were to find it only to find they are not the 'Smiths' you are looking for.