Is it a tradition to take the father's surname?

Taking the father's surname is not only a tradition, but also an effective way to prevent consanguineous marriage. This has nothing to do with the progress of civilization. European and American countries are civilized and advanced enough, but people still take their father's surname. This is a tradition and a culture. I want to take my father's surname, but I don't even know my ancestor's surname. I can't find my ancestors. If you have the ability, the child will take your surname. If you take on work and pressure, the child will take the woman's surname. Well, fellow men, if you can't guarantee that you will be better than your woman all your life, you'd better not get married first, so as not to be a "turtle" in the future. Finally, add a sentence: "Except for the son-in-law's case!"

The economic base determines who contributes a lot to the family and who is the superstructure.

The basic model of the patriarchal society is that the father's contribution to the family is greater than that of the mother. The father is responsible for providing the whole family with food rations and other living foundations, and the mother takes care of the children at home. Then it is reasonable for a son to take his father's surname. In modern society, most children still take their father's surname, because in most cases, fathers still earn more money than mothers. But with the development of society, mothers also come out to earn money to support their families. The economic base determines the superstructure. Whoever has a thick waist keeps his word. When I say family contribution, I mean not only money and material things, but also care for family members, including housework. Taking care of your family at home instead of making money outside is also a career. Some men, who have no skills, are still male chauvinistic and refuse to do housework, making no contribution to the family. What reason does such a man have to ask his children to take their surname? It is also common for children to take their mother's surname.

If women and men bear the same work pressure and want their children to have sex with women, then it is not recognized that the power between husband and wife is determined by the contribution of both parties. This kind of thinking itself is a retrogression. With the man's surname, with the woman's surname, each has its own reasons. If there is no knowledge of * * * in society, countless families will inevitably fall into contradiction because of a surname. The son inherits his father's surname. Since it has lasted for thousands of years, is it necessary for us to change it? In addition, men and women are not equal in physical and social stress. Families whose children take the father's surname will not feel the pressure of public opinion from society, relatives and friends, but if they take the mother's surname, the man will inevitably be subjected to these pressures. How is this fair enough? Just like whether a car should be driven by a friend or on the left, some problems may not have absolute reasons, but there must be established rules, otherwise it will only cause confusion.

Tradition is not necessarily backward, and innovation cannot fully reflect progress.

Community users: the wind is clear and the rain is cool. Release date: 10-08-09 15: