|
Post by Liberator on Sept 8, 2009 5:00:43 GMT
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 04:21:50PM -0700, Theoretical Abstraction wrote: > So when two people with two last names marry do their kids get four > last names?
No, that 2^N progression would be silly, though genealogists might have an easier time...
The most common solution seems to be just choosing one [half] name from each side to form a family name, based on individual preference rather than any formal system, or whatever combination sounds best.
With multiple children, giving a separate surname to each would be an option for the indecisive. That's common enough anyway with half-siblings.
-- Jordan.
--- End of original message -----
I like the way Icelanders do it with no surnames, just X-daughter or X-son, though I would want X to be the mother for maybe two generations to make distinctions. By that system, I am Ethel-Mary's Ethel's Ian-Valerey-Yves. If I ever have children, it would be nice if they are Toyin's - but one might be Dawn's Gary already. Children logically belong to the mother and I have only seen women who call themselves 'feminist' to argue against that.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Sept 8, 2009 6:48:11 GMT
Children don't 'belong' to anyone!
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 8, 2009 10:26:16 GMT
I'm going to guess that the word 'belong' is being used inappropriately.
In this case perhaps 'belong' is being used to say : Logically, children are traced more definitively to the mother - pre DNA services.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Sept 8, 2009 13:54:01 GMT
As long as I'm legally responsible for them until they turn 18; I own their funky azzes.
The state says they belong to me and I am responsible if they get into trouble
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Sept 8, 2009 14:43:25 GMT
As long as I'm legally responsible for them until they turn 18; I own their funky azzes. The state says they belong to me and I am responsible if they get into trouble Obviously I don't know what state you're in or the specifics of the laws there, but I'd be pretty suprised if it included any notion of 'ownership' of children. In your state, can your children be taken away from you and into care if you neglect or abuse them? Are you allowed to do what you like with your children, including hurting or killing them, keeping them away from school, forcing them to work in coal mines or whatever?
|
|
|
Post by everso on Sept 8, 2009 20:33:15 GMT
I just saw these definitions on one site that came up on Google:
a : to be the property of a person or thing —used with to<the book belongs to me> b : to be attached or bound by birth, allegiance, or dependency —usually used with to<they belong to their homeland> c : to be a member of a club, organization, or set —usually used with to<she belongs to a country club>
So, I suppose you could use definition (b)
|
|
|
Post by everso on Sept 8, 2009 20:40:57 GMT
As far as hereditary names goes, being old fashioned, I think the traditional method is best - using the father's surname.
Makes it easier for future family historians (being one myself I've become selfish)
However, I can see the sense in using the mother's name. There's no mistaking the fact that the child belongs to the mother because she gave birth to him/her (o.k. I know she didn't if the child is adopted, but you know what I mean), whereas the father could be anyone. I guess that's why if you're jewish you inherit your jewishness from your mother. Smart.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Sept 9, 2009 2:00:17 GMT
" 'Tis a wise child that knows its father". Jews had a lot of sense there. Among other things it meant that if an enemy raped Jews it created a lot more Jews. Since I was born ten years before my mother married my stepfather, I use her surname though strangely, though he has been dead for nearly 30 years, she still uses his. The idea of a man having primary responsibility over a woman's womb-output feels offensively sexist to me. She can choose to abort it or to give it away, she can choose the man she prefers to settle with as 'father', not necessarily the progenitor bound to her whether she wants him or not because he 'quickened' her.
As Margaret Mead said Fatherhood is a human invention. And as Germaine Greer puts it, the ultimate minimal 'family' is mother and child. She chooses 'father' if he offers her right. He does not choose her - he offers for her to choose.
Woman came before Man (no sniggering in the back there!), savages always despise civilised men as 'women' - that shows that civilisation is essentially a 'feminine' construct. In the end, Man presents himself for Woman's choice - what else are all those fairy-tales about lordly dominant Princesses sending aspirant Knights to their death about? Nature is female, society is naturally matriarchal. Men afraid to take their lead from women (and women conned into their same misogynist mentality) have to crow how distanced they are from what every religion and philosophy has always proclaimed as the co-operative 'socialist' ideal of giving a damn about anybody except yourself and the possessions you cannot take with you and nobody will care about unless you love them enough to leave a memory to care for.
|
|