Without my name the child is not mine

Maat · (#1 (**permalink**))

Greetings Everyone,

I was having what ended up being a very lengthy debate with a brother about the importance of a child carrying his surname. There were alot of things said some of which I found to be completely disrespectful to the child and the mother but to highlight the main points:

His argument
If the child doesn't have his surname even if he knows for a FACT that the child is his, he will reject the child. The babymother can deal with it. It's not his concern. His main reason seemed to be that the mother and CSA then had no right to ask him for money to help raise the child if the mother chose to report him to the CSA.

My argument
If the child is yours and you KNOW the child is yours but for her own reasons the mother chooses to give the child her surname - not another mans I might add - then there is no reason for you to reject the child.

Now he went as far as to completely right off the child even if the child was to come looking for him when he was older. To me that sounds like pure ignorance but I am not a man so I don't really know how strong a man would actually feel about this. So I'm throwing the question out to you.

If your child did not have your surname would you reject him/her??

LadyDay · (#2 (**permalink**))

how did i miss this thread

that guy sounds 100% ignorant.
my cousins children all have her last name. the fathers name i think is added in but not as the main surname

interesting to see if any men respond

Black_Power · (#3 (**permalink**))

The man is right.

Why would a woman NOT want to give the child the surname of its father? I doubt any woman would reject the surnames such as jordan. jackson beckham REGARDLESS of the circumstances surrounding the kid

name · (#4 (**permalink**))

I don't know about maintenance and issues around that but I understand him wanting his child to have his surname. Thinking of myself, well I'm not a child anymore but I wouldn't want a hyphenated surname or my mothers.

I don't agree with completely cutting a child out of your life. Then again I don't have children so don't know how I'd feel or really know what it's like to go through these situations.

Incognito · (#5 (**permalink**))

Hi Maat, hope you're well.

Part of the package for my marriage was so that my children can have my surname - officially. As much as this has to do with my African pride it is more out of respect for, and virtue of the children - it's for when they grow up and do their own soul searching to find themselves.

When I say officially, this is more from a conceptual perspective than any official recognition by the queen of England. To explain this further equate it to white weddings, although I can repect the parallels of the marriage package within the western system, as Africans it is beyond me how we even relqte to walking down the aisle in a white wedding gown and tuxedo - or if you like, same concept different culture.

So in your example, I would say the man is wrong but he does have a point...and thqt point all depends on what cultural fabric he ascribes to....but it sounds like babymother business to me which is ignorance in it's own right...and proven more by the fact that the mother is probably ascribing to her own interpretation.

Just to touch on one other element. As part of my divorce I told my ex wife to get rid of my surname. This was more to do with her not respecting the culture under which she got it. Now I don't know whether as a divorcee she has the right to take that surname away from my children which as a scorned woman I would expect her to do (if she could) - but if she did, I would still live with the comfort knowing those children are mine and have my surname officcially because the culture they got it from can't be reversed.

There are many cohabitees banding surnames around willy nilly. This is now the perceived norm where the ignorant debating even more ignorance is seen as stimulating intellectual debate.

Madam Butterfly · (#6 (**permalink**))

If a man wants a child to have his last name, he should be married to the mother. If, for whatever reason, the mother doesn;t want to marry him, then he REALLY ought to question why he is procreating with her.

If i were not married to the father of my children they would most definatly have my name, regardless of how he felt about it. When signing documents/forms/ permission slips and such like for school/doctors or whatever, i want for my children and I to have the same last name. Either that or i would hyphentate (as long as the father was playing an active role in their life).

But as for rejecting the child if the adult child were to come looking for him - what say did the child have in what name it was given? He smacks of the type of man who looks for any excuse not to mind him pickney!

Black_Power · (#7 (**permalink**))

so in other words maddam B it would be your way of getting away with being a slag?

having multiple children who all carry your name hides many sins...like multiple fathers.

I rebuke you

Bredder Tukoma · (#8 (**permalink**))

[quote=Madam Butterfly;1446368][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="3"][color="DeepSkyBlue"][i]If a man wants a child to have his last name, he should be married to the mother. If, for whatever reason, the mother doesn;t want to marry him, then he REALLY ought to question why he is procreating with her.

If i were not married to the father of my children they would most definatly have my name, regardless of how he felt about it. When signing documents/forms/ permission slips and such like for school/doctors or whatever, i want for my children and I to have the same last name. Either that or i would hyphentate (as long as the father was playing an active role in their life).

So the child only gets a hyphen name or the father's last name if he is playing an active role? So what happens if your divorced and he moves to another country? Is it a spite thing?

Seeing as in my family relatives have often taken their father's last name when they are older regardless of whether he responced or not? It leads me to believe that having a father's last name is an important thing if denied to the child. I would say that the majority of the time when the youth turns a man he will takle the father's name. Regardless. Personally I dont belive in this hyphen or mother name business. Or god forbid taking the surname of a future spouse. It just seems like fraud.

Madam Butterfly · (#9 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black_Power

so in other words maddam B it would be your way of getting away with being a slag?

having multiple children who all carry your name hides many sins...like multiple fathers.

I rebuke you

I said nothing of "multiple baby fathers" as personally this would not be something i would do (having children by multiple men) How does my child having my last name make me a slag? What if i only have the one child or two or three children by the same man? What's your opinion of men who have children by multiple women?

Madam Butterfly · (#10 (**permalink**))

[quote=Bredder Tukoma;1446388]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madam Butterfly

[font="Comic Sans MS"][size="3"][color="DeepSkyBlue"][i]If a man wants a child to have his last name, he should be married to the mother. If, for whatever reason, the mother doesn;t want to marry him, then he REALLY ought to question why he is procreating with her.

If i were not married to the father of my children they would most definatly have my name, regardless of how he felt about it. When signing documents/forms/ permission slips and such like for school/doctors or whatever, i want for my children and I to have the same last name. Either that or i would hyphentate (as long as the father was playing an active role in their life).

So the child only gets a hyphen name or the father's last name if he is playing an active role? If i were not married to the father, then yes. This seems fair enough to me. If i am not married to the father and he plays no role in the childs life what so ever, why should the child bear his name?

So what happens if your divorced and he moves to another country? Is it a spite thing?

In my scenario, i was talking about if the parents were unmarried. If i were married, then the children would have the family name, even after a divorce. If i decided to return to my maiden name i may decide to hyphenate.

Even if the father moved to another country he could still play an active role via phone calls, e mails, web cam, spending holidays together etc. In the 21st century there is no excuse. If a man loves his child/ren, there really is no reason for him to cut off all contact with them even if he were to move abroad. And if he DID cut off all contact, then why should the children continue to bear his name?

Chances are in that scenario, the divorce would have been very acrimonious, so i would definatly return to my maiden name and if the divorced father chose to relinquish all contact with his children, i would change theri names to mine.

Seeing as in my family relatives have often taken their father's last name when they are older regardless of whether he responced or not? It leads me to believe that having a father's last name is an important thing if denied to the child. I would say that the majority of the time when the youth turns a man he will takle the father's name. Regardless. Personally I dont belive in this hyphen or mother name business. Or god forbid taking the surname of a future spouse. It just seems like fraud.

In my own personal opinion, i think having a father is more important than having his name. Out of intrest BT, did your family members give a real reason for why they wanted the name of a man who wanted nothing to do with them? Was it to feel somehow "closer" to that side of the family?

Femergy · (#11 (**permalink**))

The rationale for using the father's name is born out of tradition that was grounded on sound economic sense, legacy planning and keeping the 'family jewels' within the 'family'. However, this is now largely a romanticised view with so many fragmented families it is harder to establish whether the man alone is providing for 'his' children when he is in a relationship with someone who may also be contributing to the spiritual, economic and physical wellbeing of his children, ie his current partner/wife. Interestingly, the man, his wife and his children/wife's step-children, can all share the same name putting the wife (step-mother) more aligned with his children's name. Some baby mother's cannot cope with this.

It reads to me in some of these postings that a large part of this is ego driven on either side, and that the taking of the fathers name is the only or last bit of 'control' that the biological father has over his child - the taking of the mothers name is a threat to his ego.

However, I see women fast up themselves getting pregnant and taking a man's name for their child because quite frankly of the kudos/benefits they think that get's THEM (not the child LOL) That using the man's name for this child is a way of getting the man, his property, his legacy and his future bank balance because they don't have the ring (legal rights) on their finger and this is the only piece of security they can get for their child/ren per baby father and therefore for themselves. If you think about it, whether you are with the woman or not, if you died and left property for your child/ren, the baby-mother will benefit whether you like it or not. Life has got so much more complex with the fragmentation of the family unit - a definition for this is constantly changing!

For the man to demand the child have his name as a pre-requisite for providing for his child may be considered a credit to him - but does this prove the child is his? Of course not. Two of my cousins have been victims of Jackets - they have provided for sons that weren't theirs AND they had their names.

Matriarchal systems do exists and are just as valid in many cultures.

Just some thougths.

Fem'

Incognito · (#12 (**permalink**))

Femergy - good thoughts.

We are in times where we are 'free' to chose our own reference models and our own standards yet believe we will reach consensus because we create children together or even worse because we are black.

My personal experience simply re-emphasises the fact that you find someone who shares your values. Even then, this is fine for individual 'families' but collective unity will never happen. If like me you see marriage, wed-lock, family name, children and even cleanliness as virtues and blessings from above, then these values will be wasted on a non believer - you will be seen as doing nothing. It's like when I survived 9 months unemployment to secure the roof over my childrens head, if you listen to the argument of the babymother all that effort was done to secure her financial interest in the family home.

As a brotha put it, there is nothing worse than being a conscious man only to buck an independant woman waiting to exhale

but then over the years who could argue against the fact that our women have been short changed big time.

On the contributing to the children front, I don't see why I should give the ex wife money to raise children in a way that goes against my ethos when I can raise them myself with my new wife. Ok you could ask why have children with her in the first place but that down to putting my trust or even my values on the line.

In a sense of irony, my marriage means I have legal entitlement to my children so me and my new wife just need to sort out how to drop it but yeah better believe new wife has to believe in God as opposed to money being her God....we can work anything out from there.

Our men today want bloodline and nameline for free - in short, wotliss.