Family Names: Inherently Sexist?

[Darth Raptor]

Of course they are. Even attempts to modernize them by hyphenating the wife's last name don't change that. The fact remains that only the husband's name will carry over to the next generation. Why is this? Ignoring the obvious Judeo-Christian dogma of the man being the dominant member of a couple (as if couples should even have a "dominant" member) why is this acceptable in society? Is it considered compensation for the male's relatively less significant role in reproduction?

Trivial? Of course, but do you find it acceptable? Why or why not?

The main problem with this system (apart from its intrinsic misogynism) is that there's no practical alternative that won't be just as sexist. Geneology is enough of a nightmare as it is. Is it just one of those situations where we say "Tough shit, this is the way it is and it's too hard to change." Like the calendar or the Imperial system of measurements? Jesus, I'm bored.

[Utsanomiko]

It's only sexist if it's necessary for the couple to take the man's name. And there have been cases of the opposite.

[salm]

It´s not sexist. The couple can choose to take the male´s name or the female´s name, they can have a combination of both or each can keep their old name. At least here.

I would be sexist if the female had to take the guy´s name.

[Darth Raptor]

I'm mainly concerned about the children's surname. They'll either be taking on one name or the other, right? For couples that for whatever reason aren't having children of their own, this is hardly an issue.

If someone is the last of their family and has all girls, their family name is effectively doomed. Yes, it's just a name, but IIRC soldiers were pulled from the front because they were the last to carry on their family name- so someone MUST think it's important. If the woman herself doesn't care, she may be effected by a raging patriarch of a father who doesn't put as much stock in her because she's female and can't carry on his proud name.

It's a flawed system that favors one partner over the other in an affair that is exactly 50/50. But there are simply no workable alternatives that I can think of and changing it would turn any and all attempts of charting family history into one big clusterfuck.

[AniThyng]

so....when gay couples adopt........will there be fights over who gets to issue the surname?

[Darth Raptor]

so....when gay couples adopt........will there be fights over who gets to issue the surname?

Another issue to consider, while I would either keep the child's original name or go with the one that sounds better (I'd take my husband's surname if it sounded better than mine) the naming system STILL favors one parent when both play an equal role in raising the child. This blurs the issue of course, especially if a F/F couple are actually having the child through AI or a M/M couple are using a surrogate mother...

[xcr]

But as you noted- you cannot keep expanding the name through th egranting of both. Of corse, either name can be givin to the child, I think- or for that matter, each parent could choose to adopt a third dame, and give that to the child- but in essence, in most cases, is has to be one or the other- and I dont see that as a problem, myself.

[salm]

I'm mainly concerned about the children's surname. They'll either be taking on one name or the other, right? For couples that for whatever reason aren't having children of their own, this is hardly an issue.

If someone is the last of their family and has all girls, their family name is effectively doomed. Yes, it's just a name, but IIRC soldiers were pulled from the front because they were the last to carry on their family name- so someone MUST think it's important. If the woman herself doesn't care, she may be effected by a raging patriarch of a father who doesn't put as much stock in her because she's female and can't carry on his proud name.

It's a flawed system that favors one partner over the other in an affair that is exactly 50/50. But there are simply no workable alternatives that I can think of and changing it would turn any and all attempts of charting family history into one big clusterfuck.

IIRC there´s a system that works. It´s in effect in Iceland. Male offspring has the Father´s first name + "son" as last name. So Johan Tomson´s son would be Firstname Johanson.
Female Offspring has the Mother´s First name + "Dotter" as a last name.
Which obviously means Johan´s son or Marie´s daughter.

[Medic]

so....when gay couples adopt........will there be fights over who gets to issue the surname?

[Emphasis mine] I wish I could be as optimistic; one of the few things O'Reilly might have right is the "culture war's" ever-increasing importance. Maybe Civil War is a hasty and slippery slope but I digress.

The best alternative I could think of would be... let the couple decide which name they take. It wouldn't fuck up past geneology trees and it would allow some familes to stay alive, instead of dying out.

PS -- one of my friends from Basic was pulled out of Ft. Lewis and any potential depoyments anywhere because his deadbeat dad died making him the last in his bloodline. He'll probably be reclassed in accordance with the needs of the Army. Not a bad deal -- a piss-ant father bites the dust and a duty station in Japan.

[Broomstick]

I'm mainly concerned about the children's surname. They'll either be taking on one name or the other, right? For couples that for whatever reason aren't having children of their own, this is hardly an issue.

Yes, it can be an issue, even with a childless couple.

If a woman has a significant career prior to marriage, changing her name can be seriously damaging. As an example, where I work we have several women scientists with multiple doctorate-level degrees who had established themselves and published in peer-reviewed journals prior to marriage. Since a scientist's work these days is tracked by publications, which are tracked by surname, to change your surname can, in some circumstances, essentially wipe out your prior work. Every single one of these women felt they had to keep their maiden surnames for reasons that had a major impact on their professional lives and incomes.

Women artists, writers, and entertainers also keep their maiden surnames, as "stage" or "pen" names if not legally, for the same reasons - their careers are built on produced works and a reputation linked to their original name.

All of that comes into play even before you start talking about kids.

As for what surname to give the kids - give 'em whatever you want. Two mature people should be able to sit down and discuss this as part of the marriage arrangements (that's what we did in our marriage)

[Broomstick]

IIRC there´s a system that works. It´s in effect in Iceland. Male offspring has the Father´s first name + "son" as last name. So Johan Tomson´s son would be Firstname Johanson.
Female Offspring has the Mother´s First name + "Dotter" as a last name.
Which obviously means Johan´s son or Marie´s daughter.

Not quite.

Icelanders use patrynomics - they use the father's surname for both boy and girl children. So in a hypothetical couple name Odin and Sigrun, their children are Odinsson and Odinsdottir, not Odinsson and Sigrunsdottir.

You do encounter something like Sigrunsson or Sigrunsdottir from time to time - when the father is unknown. You can also have that formation in some patrynomic cultures when the mother is of higher prominence/status than the father, but I don't know if Iceland is among them.

Russians also use patronoymics based on the father's name, with the -ovitch suffix for men and -ovna for women. So the children of a man name Ivan might be Boris Ivanovich and Natasha Ivanova. This frequently becomes a middle name - Such as Boris Ivanovich Gagarin and Natasha Ivanova Gagarin (although I think they might feminize the surname as "Gargarina" - I'm not expert in the Russian language)

I suppose you could propose a system where one lineage's surname functions as a middle name and the other lineage functions as a last name, a dual-surname system as it were. But I'm not aware of any culture that does that.

[salm]

Ah, ok, then i was wrong with the Iclanders. But now that you said this about the Russians i remember that Bulgarian friend once told me the thing with the endings. Only it wasn´t -ovitch and -ovna but -ov an -ova.
His last name is Ivanov while his sister´s last name is Ivanova.

Anyway to have a non sexist system you´d simply have to do it like i thought it was in Iceland.

[fgalkin]

Russians also use patronoymics based on the father's name, with the -ovitch suffix for men and -ovna for women. So the children of a man name Ivan might be Boris Ivanovich and Natasha Ivanova. This frequently becomes a middle name - Such as Boris Ivanovich Gagarin and Natasha Ivanova Gagarin (although I think they might feminize the surname as "Gargarina" - I'm not expert in the Russian language)

Not "frequently." Always. And yes, we do feminize the last name, so it would be Nataliya Ivanovna Gagarina.

And since I know that some of you reading this are wondering what my patronymic is, I'm going to pre-empt your question and tell you it's "Mikhailovich"

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Alyeska]

I'm of the opinion that married couples should pick a new name that they both assume. Their madien name then becomes their middle name.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see what's wrong with the current system. It is not mandatory for the female to change her surname, so what's the problem? She gets the choice of whether to change her name or not, which is convenient if she prefers one name over the other. There is no social stigma attached with the decision to keep her maiden name if that's what she decides to do.

The guy, on the other hand, does not really get that choice. For a guy to change his surname to match his wife's surname would lead to an eternity of abusive comments from other men about his perceived loss of manhood.

[Alyeska]

I doubt there is much choice when you consider 99% of all families have the women automaticaly taking the husbands name.

[Perinquus]

Russians also use patronoymics based on the father's name, with the -ovitch suffix for men and -ovna for women. So the children of a man name Ivan might be Boris Ivanovich and Natasha Ivanova. This frequently becomes a middle name - Such as Boris Ivanovich Gagarin and Natasha Ivanova Gagarin (although I think they might feminize the surname as "Gargarina" - I'm not expert in the Russian language)

Not "frequently." Always. And yes, we do feminize the last name, so it would be Nataliya Ivanovna Gagarina.

And since I know that some of you reading this are wondering what my patronymic is, I'm going to pre-empt your question and tell you it's "Mikhailovich"

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I wonder how often Russians really use the habit of addressing someone by both their first name and patronymic (which it seems Russians are always doing when they appear in novels).

"So tell me Yevgeny Mikhailovich..."

"Arkady Grigorovich, my old friend..."

"I tell you Sergei Ivanovich..."

etc. etc.

Do they really do this, or is it just a literary affectation?

[Perinquus]

I doubt there is much choice when you consider 99% of all families have the women automaticaly taking the husbands name.

Of course there is a choice. No one is compelled to follow this custom. If most people choose not to, it is simply because they find it most convenient, for many reasons, for both spouses and any children to have a single family name. However there are women who choose not to do this, and they suffer little to no negative repercussions from this. So how is it that they haven't much choice?

[salm]

The guy, on the other hand, does not really get that choice. For a guy to change his surname to match his wife's surname would lead to an eternity of abusive comments from other men about his perceived loss of manhood.

Nah, a female friend of mine married a guy who droped his surname and took up her surname. He has no problems. Nobody gives a shit.

[Darth Wong]

The guy, on the other hand, does not really get that choice. For a guy to change his surname to match his wife's surname would lead to an eternity of abusive comments from other men about his perceived loss of manhood.

Nah, a female friend of mine married a guy who droped his surname and took up her surname. He has no problems. Nobody gives a shit.

What country do you live in?

[Aaron]

A friend of mine on my military trades course took his wife's last name. He has had to endure years of abuse at the hands of us for it. Comments about loss of manhood are common.

[Lord Zentei]

Icelandic system:

The father's (occationally and/or mother's) last name with "-son" or "-dóttir" added to the end. My father's name is Jón, so I'm Jónsson. I could also claim to be Inguson.

The wife never takes the husband's last name nor does the husband ever take the wife's last name: it wouldn't make sense, since it really means "son of <fill in blank>" or "daughter of <fill in blank>". Technically it isn't really a name per se.

Apparently, this system was more widespread in Scandinavia a century or two ago. Were the only ones who keep to the old ways.

[salm]

The guy, on the other hand, does not really get that choice. For a guy to change his surname to match his wife's surname would lead to an eternity of abusive comments from other men about his perceived loss of manhood.

Nah, a female friend of mine married a guy who droped his surname and took up her surname. He has no problems. Nobody gives a shit.

What country do you live in?

Germany.

[Master of Ossus]

My great-grandfather took the Tanoi name as part of the deal that allowed him to marry my great-grandmother, too. It's not impossible for such things to occur, it's just somewhat unusual.

[Junghalli]

I agree with Darth Wong. There's nothing really horribly wrong with the current system. You could think of it as a holdover from an earlier stage of our cultural evolution-of which I can guarentee you all societies and languages are full. Really, with all the far more urgent and serious problems there are in the world it would be ridiculous to reform the family-naming system. If it does create problems then the cold sword of Darwin will get rid of it in time anyway, in much the same way the Mrs. form of adress seems to be gradually dying out (at least in my part of the country).