Children belong to their mother. I feel very very very strongly about this. I wouldn't agree to have children with my partner until I got him to agree that they would be MINE. Yes, from a biological standpoint, they are genetically 1/2 mine and genetically 1/2 his, but that's where the equality ends.
From a tiny cell barely large enough to be seen, the woman grows a 7 1/2 pound (average) baby, using materials taken entirely from her own body. From a physical / material standpoint, the finished product is 99.9...% hers (the sperm, the only physical material the male contributes, isn't even large enough to be seen). From a legal standpoint, I believe that anything that comes from a person's body belongs to that person, unless it enters the body of another person, in which case it becomes the property of the other person. Therefore, when the sperm is in the male's body, it belongs to him. Once it enters the woman's body, it becomes her property. He has given it to her. The baby, when it is inside the woman's body, belongs to her (because, as I said before, everything inside your body belongs to you). Once it comes out of her body, it still belongs to her (because, as I said before, anything that comes from a person's body belongs to that person, unless it enters the body of another person). I believe that the child continues to belong to her for as long as it is a child. Once it is an adult, of course, it belongs to itself. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, the child is (physically, materially) 100% hers. I believe that all divorced or separated women should have physical custody of their children, unless they are abusive. So much for the "physical / material possession" argument.
Now here's Reason # 2. The mother grows the child inside her body for nine months. She then gives very painful and exhausting birth to it. Even after the birth, the child is still connected to her. Even after the cord is cut, it is indirectly connected to her when it breastfeeds. Men are not capable of pregnancy, birth, or breastfeeding. In my opinion, this is the ONLY difference between men and women. But where children are concerned, it is a significant difference. Nature has clearly determined that children are a woman's domain. So much for Reason # 2: Nature.
Now here's Reason # 3: Bonding. There is simply no way you can grow a child inside you for 9 months, give birth to it, and breastfeed it, without developing a stronger bond with it than anyone else who has not done these things. Yes, fathers bond with their children as well, but there is simply no comparison. The mother's bond is stronger, and on a physical level. The father's bond is on a purely psychological level. A father could develop just as strong a bond with a child that wasn't even his, as long as he thought it was his. Even adoptive bonds might be as strong. I believe the mother-child bond is the most sacred of all bonds.
If anyone out there agrees with this, please email me and let me know! (Your letter may appear below.)
Responses to the above, and my counter-responses:
"I believe the mother-child bond is the most sacred of all bonds. I totally agree with your statement here. But!!! ((Children belong to their mother??)). I feel very strongly that children belong with their mother who has the responsibility of raising them soundly with good morals, health habits and a reasonable education throughout their childhood. I was one mother whose children were taken away simply because I was not wealthy enough to hire and fight the lawyers my ex-husband and his mother hired. But the phrase{belong to} smacks me in the face with the sound of slavery. I would reword it, but that is only my opinion... I do understand your feelings."
I meant belong to in the legal sense, as in custody. So I guess what I really meant was belong with. But I also meant that only the mother has the right to make decisions concerning the child's welfare. I don't believe in any kind of "father's rights." What happened to you is exactly the kind of situation that we need to prevent through legislation. They were YOUR kids!!! This is what I mean by "belong to." They were yours. I didn't mean the kind of possession that implies that you can do whatever you want with/to them, like you can with other possessions. Obviously rights are coupled with responsibilities, and I also believe that children have rights of their own. They are not just slaves. For example, I don't believe that even mothers have the right to violate the integrity of a child's body for non-medical reasons (piercings, circumcision, etc.). All rights are limited.
"I agree with you. The child is yours! But what does that have to do with what you name the child? Can't it be named polly wally diddle and still belong to you?"
Your child's first and middle names don't have anything to do with whom the child belongs to, but the last name does. It is the family name. It is the name of the family that the child belongs to.
"i read your matriarchy page (and the others) and i just wanted you to know that i am in total agreement! that is how we feel as well.
"however, (to bolster your argument) technically, the mother is more than 1/2 the bio material since the egg is a complete cell, and the sperm only a carrier of chromo's. in other words, the child inherits a complete cell, and therefore a blueprint for future cell structure from her mother, making mom's lovely cells more the defining structure for the child.
"have you read _Naming Ourselves, Naming our Children_? It is SUCH a compelling argument against patrilineal naming.
"anyway, just thought i'd shout out a 'hey!' to let you know i agree."
Thank you so much for writing. I LOVE to hear from people who agree with me on this issue. : )
No, I haven't read the book you mention. Sounds like a good one; I'd love to read it. Another good one is _The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets_ by Barbara Walker.
-Alice
"I am writing to let you know that I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion that children should bear the mother’s last name. My wife has a daughter from a previous relationship who has her last name. So do our two daughters. As for me, as the saying goes, I've come a long way, baby. Five years ago, when we got married, I assumed that my wife would adopt my last name. When she said she wouldn't, I was hurt. But I got over it. Then, shortly after she became pregnant, I was very distraught when she said that she'd like our daughter to have her last name. After watching her go through the pregnancy, though, I had to admit that, between the two of us, she deserved to have her name bestowed. I sloughed off all of the 'male ego' issues as best I could and am now the proud father of [two children, both of whom have my wife's last name] (I'm honored to be in the middle name position).
"I have to admit that this is a better naming procedure than our traditional one. One advantage not mentioned in your article is that with out of wedlock births and divorces so prevalent and with mothers obtaining custody almost 100% of the time, having kids bear the mother's name is very efficient and less confusing. Take our family, for example. Under the traditional system, my wife would be Mrs. 'Smith' and would be responsible for 2 'Smith's' and 1 'Jones' (her ex-partner's last name). It would all be very confusing at school, at the bank, and myriad other settings. Under the new system, however, there are simply 4 'Doe's'. (Middle names, as I've learned over the past 4 years, don't really count.) That leaves me, the lone 'Smith'. In that vein, I think it's interesting that your article is found under the topic heading of 'Matriarchy.' For, taken to its logical conclusion, there is an argument that, in marriage, the man should actually adopt the woman's surname. This is something that I'm considering now. If I did, we'd all be 'Doe's'. Pretty radical, no doubt, but it makes more sense than the present system. Anyway, if society went in this direction, I'm sure that all of you girls would have a good laugh or two. Wedding announcements stating that 'the groom will retain his name professionally.' Men being hounded and second-guessed for bucking tradition and not taking their wife's name. And high-school reunions will never be the same: the guys will have the name tags that read 'Bill (Clinton) Rodham' and 'Tom (Cruise) Kidman.' And in a more serious vein, it will acknowledge that our society is becoming more matriarchal and that women, not men, are at the center of things. Kind of makes me feel like a second-class citizen. Oh, well. You can't fight progress.
"Best regards."
Thank you so much for writing. You mention divorce and custody. I was very disturbed to learn that when custody is contested in court, 70% of the time the father gets custody. This is what happened to the writer of one of the above letters. Her children were taken away from her. Judges tend to be male, and the decision tends to depend, not upon who the primary caretaker has been, but on who has the higher-paying job.
There was another case here locally that REALLY disturbed me. A divorced mother didn't want her ex husband to have unsupervised visitation any more, because she claimed he had sexually abused the child. The judge said, "there's no evidence of that, so you must be lying... and due to your lying, I'm going to grant full physical custody of your child to your ex husband." Naturally, the horrified mother took her daughter and ran away somewhere and hid with her. Shortly after, flyers appeared all around saying "Ms. Jones has kidnapped Miss Smith" and since they had different last names, it appeared to be a real kidnapping by a stranger who wanted a ransom, instead of just a mother taking her own child.
As for the idea that a man should use his partner's last name, I enjoy telling people that, as a progressive thinker who believes in men's liberation, I understand my partner's desire to maintain his own identity, and do not require him to take my name. ; )
Alice
"your web site rocks!!!!!
i honestly have met no one else who named their dc using their own last name. no hypen, ect. when i tell people, they
either think it is cool or wierd. but cool in the ecentric way, not in the way that they would do it.
anyway, i am still reading through all your pages on your web site, but wanted to tell you how wonderful it has been
reading it.
Thanks!"
Thank you - I'm glad you like my web site! : )
Alice
