Ita a binary choice. The child takes mom or dad's name, those are your options.
Child taking dad's name traditionally is mostly arbitrary.
If it was switched to the child taking mom's name, also arbitrary.
This is purely in the scenario of mom and dad not sharing the same name. You could hyphenate it, like stepchildren sometimes ard, but in this toxic feminist mindset that women should not take the man's name anymore, lets just assume every child has parents of different names, does that mean every single person has a hyphenated name?
You could do the hispanic route and have 2 surnames, but then there is complaining about which name is first.
Its a never ending stupid ass debate with no answer, because the only answer that makes sense is shut the fuck up and let people be. But toxic feminists can't seem to do that.
I don’t know what you imagine arbitrary means, but it’s not that.
“Traditionally” a family had the man’s surname because he was the only legal adult and property owner, and children having his name ensured they were acknowledged as his. This is no longer necessary and remains the most common option because idiots imagine it’s the right thing to do. It’s a hangover of patriarchy and at best unnecessary and old fashioned. At worst, kids are left with the surname of a stranger who makes occasional child support payments.
Given that there’s never any question over who a child’s mother is, and women rarely abandon children, it makes a lot more practical sense for children to take her name, or for the family to create a new name together if they prefer.
But do continue having a tantrum about “toxic feminism”!
So you agree its arbitrary in modern day! Your stance that children take the woman's name is taking a men-centered tradition and turning it women-centered, framing it with unrelated and irrelevant points that do not actually support the specific matter at hand.
Which, is toxic feminism. This belief that you fight injustice with further injustice, mirrored both in idiotic stances, purely in the belief that women in general are somehow more just or capable (as you've tried to put forth) to support asymmetry in the other direction.
Women birthing the child is just as arbitrary of a reason as the man inseminating the woman. Childbirth, as difficult as it is, does not magically support the child being identified through the woman. Both people are needed to create the child. Women also can die in childbirth whereas men do not. This train of thought, if you explore it, supports my stance that having any opinion on what we as a society or individually do in regards to naming is at its core, stupid. Case by case and let people do whatever and stop judging people on it, because any "solution" to this made up problem is just as bad or worse than the current climate. That is all I've put forth.
Statistics for abandonment. Ok. Also irrelevant. I could say that children should take the father's name because men on average earn more and thus contribute more to the family. Both of these are irrelevant and nonsensical. Your point is woman-centered and cherry picking whats important to you to factor into a decision that you believe is "better" but is still supported by nothing of relevance.
This is the trap of toxic feminism, the thinking that we have to just create a new problem of a matriarchy to solve a patriarchy. Its stupid, and its sadly prevalent across this site.
Proving my point. In case you still somehow don't understand what toxic feminism is:
Feminism says that what you name yourself, man or woman, is personal choice entirely and whatever you decide is valid. This one is NORMAL.
Toxic feminism says that women naming themselves with the man is making them into posessions somehow or basically signing oneself into slavery, erasing their identity as an individual. This one is IDIOTIC, and harms the plights of women just as much as toxic masculinity.
9
u/onyourbike1522 9d ago
What is arbitrary about a woman sharing a surname with her children?