Naming Conventions

In this day and age, the convention of giving all of one's children their father's name is outdated and oppressive, not to mention limited in the family situations it handles. But the alternatives have their own shortcomings.

My spouse and I decided to keep our own names when we got married, and kick the can down the road for when we actually have children. But we're going to have to decide how to handle it eventually, so I've been thinking about our options.

Here are some things that are nice in a naming system:

• Sustainability. It can, in principle, be done by future generations ad infinitum.
• Connection to the past. Your last name goes back generations and connects you to those who came before.
• Connection to family. You have the same last name as your family members, so you feel connected to them.
• Determinism. Names chosen at random may engender resentment in those who "lose" the coin toss.
• Equality. Free from systemic discrimination in favor of one parent.
• Flexible. Fits many different family types.

Here are some options for choosing family last names, rated on these items:

Patriarchal naming: Sustainable. Solid connection to the past and to family. Deterministic. Not equal. Not flexible -- doesn't work for queer couples or unusual family structures.

Patriarchal naming for children, but the woman keeps her own name: Similar pros/cons, but with very slightly improved equality. Not a real solution. My parents, and most of my friends' parents, did this.

Hyphenate, i.e. give all kids both names: Not remotely sustainable. A cop-out, kicking the football to future generations. Not radical enough.

Matriarchal naming: Very similar pros/cons to patriarchal, though in the current environment, probably pushes toward equality overall.

Flip a coin and pick one spouse's name to be everyone's: Satisfies all criteria except determinism, which basically kills it. Also, in the current climate, people will be real weird about it if you end up taking your husband's name ("no, I swear, I only did it because it was a fair coin toss and he would have been prepared to take mine instead!").

Pick a union name, invented or chosen by the couple: No connection to the past at all. Otherwise good. Especially good for flexibility.

Smash together the two spouse's last names: Connection to past is somewhat better, but ultimately similar to union names because most traceability is lost. Likely to result in hard-to-prounounce Frankennames.

Name children based on gender (female children get woman's name, etc.): Works only for heterosexual couples. Connection to family is decreased (not everyone has the same last name). Not good determinism -- could result in one parent feeling hurt or left out based on gender parity of kids.

Name children based on alternating birth order: Similar to the above, but more flexible and deterministic. Still has parity problems; induces unnecessary pressure to have an even number of children.

Union names, taking an older relative's name: Still somewhat poor equality, since you have to choose just one name. Since it's not the usual "take husband's name," though, it smacks less of systemic oppression. Variations:

• Flip a coin to determine which grandparent’s maiden name you use.
• Pick the grandparent's name with least representation in the population, according to some objective measure. (Select from either 4 parents’ names, or only the 2 that neither member of the couple carries for decreased bias.)
• Pick the grandparent's name least counterfactually likely to have grandchildren at the time of selection.

So far I think my spouse and I are leaning most towards the last two options, but none of them are totally satisfying.