AisleDash

Most American brides will change their name. The most common reason women cite for doing so is to have the same name as the (future) children. There are other reasons, of course, but by far the most compelling reason is the children.

Which puzzles me. Where is it written that children have to take on their father's surname? (Hint: Nowhere.) I could be cynical and point out how many studies show that women do the vast bulk of childcare, women do most of the administration of children's schedules and needs, women do most of the disciplining, feeding, and clothing. And, in the unfortunate event of divorce, the children usually live with their mothers. And yet never, not for a nanosecond, does anyone seem to consider that the children could just as easily have their mother's surname.

In Norway, children automatically get the mother's surname. Spain and Iceland also have matronymic naming systems. I have friends who agreed that their first child would have his surname, and their second child would have hers. It has worked out just fine. The children are 13 and 10 now, and they have a strong and vibrant family.

So. If your kids could have your surname, would you still change it?