In many cases the father of the child if either unknown, or has disappeared. Often now the relationships do not last and the only certainty is who the mother is. It would be easier in marriage for the children if the man took the wifes name. Often after divorce the woman reverts back to her maiden name anyway.
2007-03-15 10:57:23 · 11 answers · asked by JoJo 4 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
I think that you make a good point, and it depends...
Firstly, I want to say to those presumably blessed females who answer by criticising women who have had the misfortune of the father of the child(ren) being a total arsehead: if you are aware of some kind of formula or Guaranteed Genuine system, please share it with the world. It's also slightly suspect to suggest that people who don't have the perfect parental background - shouldn't have been born. I should think that rules out quite a few eminent characters in history amongst us lesser mortals.
I think it's a good thing that people can choose which name the child takes - I know and know of people with all the different combinations - married and unmarried. In some countries it is usual to take both maternal and paternal strands in their name. I think it's important what the name is, including how it scans, and what it means (value) to the family. There really is no reason why taking the man's name should be considered to have greater validity, even if it is the default option for most people.
2007-03-15 11:33:35 · answer #1 · answered by L 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thjere have been a lot of different cultural compromises on this.
Classic jewish geneology wants to list the descent from the father but they actually trace the mothers (reasoning that you can not really be sure about the father, but the mother is pretty definite).
Any culture(there are histories of a few) that had matrilineal heritage died out. The women chose the invaders, them men allowed the women to do that.
So not a good sociological strategy for a culture to adopt!
Mixed systems like Jewish have severe additional restrictions in place.
___________________________________
Honey you and the Kids have the right to choose any last name you want!
Let Jesus Bonehead pay for fighting it in court if he can afford it.
2007-03-15 12:39:15 · answer #2 · answered by U-98 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's up to the parents which name goes on the birth certificate. There is no law that says it must be the father's name. So people are free to do what they want.
2007-03-15 11:02:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What's in the name? Rose by any other name would still smell the same!
If you dont like the system .....change it!
If you cant change it then ......accept it!
Only if today's Britain diden't live on doll
would the teenager gals value their hole
and such a question would never come to poll......
2007-03-15 12:34:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My fiance might take my last name because he hates the man who raised him (he has his last name) and he doesn't know his birth father. I think it's more convenient.
2007-03-15 11:54:25 · answer #5 · answered by ♥ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its a personal thing and up to the individuals concerned .... but i agree that it should not be the norm to take the mans name.
2007-03-15 11:04:18 · answer #6 · answered by Live&LetLive 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
why are you living in the past still???
does it really matter whose surname you have
you can always change it
by deed poll
2007-03-15 11:29:51 · answer #7 · answered by boonoora 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no cos mine would now be Pratt and I have enough problems in my life already!!
2007-03-15 11:04:51 · answer #8 · answered by G*I*M*P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well maybe everyone should quit making babies with random men and this wouldn't be a problem.
2007-03-15 11:00:29 · answer #9 · answered by SillyKimmie 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
girls lose the name anyway when they get married
2007-03-15 11:01:47 · answer #10 · answered by juejua 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋