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!