I'm unmarried and childless, but I'd be of the same school as the OP's wife: I'd definitely not change my name upon marriage and would want any children to have my name (though I would open to double-barrel). I am really struck by the amount of male friends who are incredibly bothered by the notion that hypothetical children of mine (not with them) might have my surname solely. They are horrified, it's against tradition, society, it's emasculating. My point is that Ireland has changed and tradition is not always a good thing. In general, what's wrong with some people having their mother's surname?! The only solution for the OP is to compromise.
- Status
I dont think keeping your own name when getting married is getting your own way. Why do men think they are the only people who are entitled to have their name carried on down through the generations .
Z
z104
Guest
Fathers surname. tradition ( unless you have a truly terrible surname or maybe she plans on leaving you and doesn't want to be reminded of you)
R
RIAD_BSC
Guest
Thanks for all the replies everybody. Firstly, I don't think it is sexist that I want my children to have my surname - I think it is pretty normal. I also don't believe I am a neanderthal, although I'm starting to wonder...
Foxylady basically sums up what my wife (and almost every other woman) seems to think on this issue - that this is just all about my fragile "ego" and that I am old-fashioned or patriarchal because I want my kids to have my surname.
But that isn't true. Some of the women contributing to this thread have clearly made very little effort to understand the psychology of fatherhood. Ladies, please just think about it for a second and try, temporarily, to see it from my side....
Treetiger, for example, completely dismisses out of hand the idea that if I have a different surname to my child, then society will look at me any differently. It will.... some people, rightly or wrongly, will assume I am not the child's father, or that perhaps I married a woman who had already had kids with someone else... That's not male-ego paranoia, that's fact.
If I, without my wife, was taking my child abroad for a trip and my surname was *Murphy and the child's surname was *Smith, (* not our real names) do you really think the passport control guy would not, at least fleetingly, wonder if I am the child's father and whether everything is kosher with me bringing the kid abroad? The role of a woman is never questioned, but the role of the man is open to more scrutiny and suspiscion. Treetiger thinks I am being stupid here, but every man reading this will know what I mean. It is intrinsic to being male and a father to want to have that recognised.
Women such as Lou2 say that because my wife carries the child for 9 months and I don't, that that gives the mother more rights to the child. But, Lou2, while I thank you for your comments, that's a totally specious argument. It is nothing to do with my contribution to the process - We all know damn well that a man can't trump that argument, because a man can't have children. So using the old "I carried the child so I get to make all the decisions'' argument is a bit of a low blow, in my opinion.
Simple fact is, society values motherhood above fatherhood, and all the "rules" and traditions (with the sole exception of surnames) are stacked in the mother's favour and recognise her pre-emptive surperiority in the parenting process. Fact.
If I wasn't married to my wife, I would have no legal rights whatsoever to the child. If my wife and I got divorced, she would automatically get custody of the child if she wanted it, unless she was insane or an axe-murderer. That's not written in the rules, but it is fact, and everybody knows it. My wife gets 6 months automatically of maternity leave, but there is no paternity leave in Irish law. The list goes on....
I am not saying I want to change all those things above, or even that I disagree with them. But ladies, please, why can't you just recognise that the surname tradition is the one thing that blokes have stacked in their favour throughout the whole process? And to some of us, it is very important - it helps form a bond that mothers take for granted. Women might sniff at that and ridicule it, but that's the way it is.
If nothing else, I am a little upset that she won't just allow the child to carry my surname, as a gift to me... especially seeing as she knows how much it means to me. Maybe she'll have a change of heart.
ps - My comments on double-barelled names hold: I think they are pompous and would sound particularly ridiculous with my name attached the double barrel. I'd rather the child had her name than a double barrelled name.
Cheers... I'll let you all know how we get on..... provided my wife doesn't decapitate me in the meantime!
Foxylady basically sums up what my wife (and almost every other woman) seems to think on this issue - that this is just all about my fragile "ego" and that I am old-fashioned or patriarchal because I want my kids to have my surname.
But that isn't true. Some of the women contributing to this thread have clearly made very little effort to understand the psychology of fatherhood. Ladies, please just think about it for a second and try, temporarily, to see it from my side....
Treetiger, for example, completely dismisses out of hand the idea that if I have a different surname to my child, then society will look at me any differently. It will.... some people, rightly or wrongly, will assume I am not the child's father, or that perhaps I married a woman who had already had kids with someone else... That's not male-ego paranoia, that's fact.
If I, without my wife, was taking my child abroad for a trip and my surname was *Murphy and the child's surname was *Smith, (* not our real names) do you really think the passport control guy would not, at least fleetingly, wonder if I am the child's father and whether everything is kosher with me bringing the kid abroad? The role of a woman is never questioned, but the role of the man is open to more scrutiny and suspiscion. Treetiger thinks I am being stupid here, but every man reading this will know what I mean. It is intrinsic to being male and a father to want to have that recognised.
Women such as Lou2 say that because my wife carries the child for 9 months and I don't, that that gives the mother more rights to the child. But, Lou2, while I thank you for your comments, that's a totally specious argument. It is nothing to do with my contribution to the process - We all know damn well that a man can't trump that argument, because a man can't have children. So using the old "I carried the child so I get to make all the decisions'' argument is a bit of a low blow, in my opinion.
Simple fact is, society values motherhood above fatherhood, and all the "rules" and traditions (with the sole exception of surnames) are stacked in the mother's favour and recognise her pre-emptive surperiority in the parenting process. Fact.
If I wasn't married to my wife, I would have no legal rights whatsoever to the child. If my wife and I got divorced, she would automatically get custody of the child if she wanted it, unless she was insane or an axe-murderer. That's not written in the rules, but it is fact, and everybody knows it. My wife gets 6 months automatically of maternity leave, but there is no paternity leave in Irish law. The list goes on....
I am not saying I want to change all those things above, or even that I disagree with them. But ladies, please, why can't you just recognise that the surname tradition is the one thing that blokes have stacked in their favour throughout the whole process? And to some of us, it is very important - it helps form a bond that mothers take for granted. Women might sniff at that and ridicule it, but that's the way it is.
If nothing else, I am a little upset that she won't just allow the child to carry my surname, as a gift to me... especially seeing as she knows how much it means to me. Maybe she'll have a change of heart.
ps - My comments on double-barelled names hold: I think they are pompous and would sound particularly ridiculous with my name attached the double barrel. I'd rather the child had her name than a double barrelled name.
Cheers... I'll let you all know how we get on..... provided my wife doesn't decapitate me in the meantime!
Z
z104
Guest
TBH this argument to me is sad. RIAD has a valid point, he wants a tradition to continue on, double barrelled names are a new thing and not the norm in Irish family traditions and I think his wife should love him enough to give him something that really means so much to him. Ok she might not love it but if she loves and adores him then surely she would let the tradition of husband's surname stand?
Good luck RIAD, you are not a neanderthal at all and your argument is very articulate and valid. And I hope there won't be any lasting ill-will on the issue that will overshadow the joy of the newborn.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Just wanted to address this one - so what?
Anyone who KNOWS you will know the children are yours. Who cares what some random stranger who happens to see both surnames thinks? Even if the children werent yours and you were raising them - so what?
I just dont see any valid argument here. Its all a bit 'what will the neighbours think'.
Your wife is clearly a rational, modern woman. You need to try to remove the emotion and have a rational discussion about what the optimal solution is for both of you.
I'd avoid using terms such as traditional and normal, they don't add anything to your argument and detract from some of the stronger points that you are making.
'Traditionally' you wouldn't have sex before marraige, her parents would get to pick you based on your 'prospects' and she wouldn't work. You can't just pick the traditions that only favour men and argue to keep those due to some love of tradition!
The issues that sound really important to you (and that I think she would be more likely to listen to) are:
- People knowing that you're the father
- You bonding with the baby
Explain to her how important those two points are to you, without recourse to tradition, or but it's normal or anything like that and maybe draw up a list of pros and cons of all the options together.
Ultimately, this is a bit of a judgement of Solomon, you both need to want what's best for all three of you and not spend this time arguing!
I'd avoid using terms such as traditional and normal, they don't add anything to your argument and detract from some of the stronger points that you are making.
'Traditionally' you wouldn't have sex before marraige, her parents would get to pick you based on your 'prospects' and she wouldn't work. You can't just pick the traditions that only favour men and argue to keep those due to some love of tradition!
The issues that sound really important to you (and that I think she would be more likely to listen to) are:
- People knowing that you're the father
- You bonding with the baby
Explain to her how important those two points are to you, without recourse to tradition, or but it's normal or anything like that and maybe draw up a list of pros and cons of all the options together.
Ultimately, this is a bit of a judgement of Solomon, you both need to want what's best for all three of you and not spend this time arguing!
My OH's mother retained her surname when they married. It wasn't a big deal, she liked her surname, he saw no issues with her holding on to it. To this day everything is still in her surname. Their kids have the fathers surname.
I on the other hand, plan on marrying into this family and I have every intention of taking my OH's surname. Luckily for me I am not too keen on my own surname so I am more than happy to be gone with it and take his. To me its not about being a modern feminist (because I am on so many other issues). Its about being a family together as a unit and all members of that family recognizing that and feeling that sense of security. What about when the child gets to wondering why he/she doesn't have his/her fathers surname?
I do feel for the original poster, I completely see his side and I too would be upset. I also see it from her point of view but she is being more stubborn about it. The OP wants to feel included and the Mrs. is isolating him.
If you want my opinion - stand your ground. It's clearly very important to you and you are upset. Hopefully she is just being stubborn and will come around.
Otherwise you could do what a man I know did -
They went to register the childs name on the birth cert. They had decided on Elizabeth* as the childs name, but would call her Liz* day to day. Father had an issue with the full long name and just wanted her to be called Liz* so he filled out all forms using Liz* as the name and not Elizabeth*. Wife was p-ed off for a few days but got over it.
*not real names, just a good example.
I on the other hand, plan on marrying into this family and I have every intention of taking my OH's surname. Luckily for me I am not too keen on my own surname so I am more than happy to be gone with it and take his. To me its not about being a modern feminist (because I am on so many other issues). Its about being a family together as a unit and all members of that family recognizing that and feeling that sense of security. What about when the child gets to wondering why he/she doesn't have his/her fathers surname?
I do feel for the original poster, I completely see his side and I too would be upset. I also see it from her point of view but she is being more stubborn about it. The OP wants to feel included and the Mrs. is isolating him.
If you want my opinion - stand your ground. It's clearly very important to you and you are upset. Hopefully she is just being stubborn and will come around.
Otherwise you could do what a man I know did -
They went to register the childs name on the birth cert. They had decided on Elizabeth* as the childs name, but would call her Liz* day to day. Father had an issue with the full long name and just wanted her to be called Liz* so he filled out all forms using Liz* as the name and not Elizabeth*. Wife was p-ed off for a few days but got over it.
*not real names, just a good example.
I would like to say I dont think this is purely about your ego and do understand where you are coming from to a certain degree. I dont think you should be concerned what other people think as in you might not be the father sure couldnt they think that about your wife if the chikd had your name and once agan who cares what others think. This is not a valid point for wanting your child to have your name.
You go on about all the advantages your wife has over you , ie 6 months maternity leave and no paternity leave. I think ther is a massive difference as in he trauma a womans body goes through .
And the whole custody issue may seem unfair to you but to lots of men its ideal as they dont want the responsibility of caring for their kids.
Ultimately I dont think there is a right or wrong answer to your predicament but rather something you should discuss with your wife and come to a compromise on
That's some statement to make
Where are these "lots of men"?
Do you think those men who scale high-rise buildings in the UK dressed as spiderman etc to highlight their plight are happy to have all their spare time to themselves?
"And the whole custody issue may seem unfair to you but to lots of men its ideal as they dont want the responsibility of caring for their kids."
Terrible statement. There may be a few good for nothings out there, but the majority of men are only too happy to be a big part of their childrens' lives. Some haven't been allowed to, but most men given this opportunity would be only too delighted to have it.
Terrible statement. There may be a few good for nothings out there, but the majority of men are only too happy to be a big part of their childrens' lives. Some haven't been allowed to, but most men given this opportunity would be only too delighted to have it.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
While I agree its a sweeping statement, there is a difference between being part of a childs life and being the custodial parent.
My wife and I went through the same issue. She kept her name after marriage and I had no issue with that. Once you've done this, I think it's appropriate for any child to incorporate both names. After all, it's a joint production. It's not a "gift" from the wife to the husband.
We realise that some people have an issue with this but ultimately we don't care.
We realise that some people have an issue with this but ultimately we don't care.
What's your point exactly?
Every father I know wants to be more than just a name on a birth cert
I was referring to them being delighted to have custody or joint custody of their kids. Unfortunately in a lot of these cases they are denied it by the mother who automatically gets custody.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
My point is that this was said
but this:
is not actually addressing the custodial aspect of the first statement, which is not implying that men do not want a part of their childs lives, but do not want custody.
I am not implying that either idea is correct, but simply that there is a big difference bewteen custody and being a part of a childs life.
I know a number of people who have a child that the father has done a complete runner - not a part of their life at all - it does happen.
I also know one man who fought for custody of his child and won.
There are all sorts out there, I dont think sweeping statements cover all cases.
- Status