Bridget Moynahan/Tom Brady baby name game - Page 4

DVS_one · August 29th, 2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WitchHazelEyed

Seriously? Oh silly me! I forgot that having a dick means that your kids get your last name, if you so choose. Sorry, but what's wrong with a woman wanting her child to have her last name? You act like it's a man's god-given right to tack on their last name to any offspring they might have while they're whoring it up.

ding ding... we have a winner in round one!!

Sweetie · August 29th, 2007, 01:09 PM

I don't think it's the mother or the father's god-given right to just tack on either name. Both helped make the baby, both are equal parents and both should have some say in it. Unless of course, one parent is a piece of shit that has nothing to do with the baby.
Just because a woman had the baby does not make her more of a parent than the father.

Mel1973 · August 29th, 2007, 01:10 PM

If it's a woman who's raising the kid on her own 96% of the time, yeah, she's more of a parent...

DVS_one · August 29th, 2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sluce

PG - I am often shocked and saddened by your archaeic notions of how men and women should behave in relationships, marriage and parenting. It's as if men can do no wrong. I hope you someday wake up and live in the real world. You'll find many, many women who are successful in business, in love, in marriage and in parenting. They do it without being submissive and allowing their fathers and then husbands to rule their lives.

The changes over the last 40 years have been wonderful for women and men. A recent study showed that the generation of men getting married today have grown up in families with working mothers and have seen that it takes two people treating each other as equals to make it work. They are entering their marriages realizing that their wife may continue to work outside the home after they have kids and even that they have the choice to be the one to stay at home if they so choose. They go in knowing they must share the parenting roles and household chores. They view marriage as a partnership. Many come from divorced parents and are trying to make their marriages stronger so they won't get divorced. Real men do not feel the need for their partners to be less of a person so they can feel better about themselves. I'm sure there are still enough cavemen out there who want the little lady at home barefoot, pregnant and making them dinner. Women who actually want that should have their choice of them since most women don't want them.

Women have also benefitted because they now know they can make it on their own if they need to. They are leaving marriages where they are abused more often. They are making decisions to not raise their children in an environment where they will see their mothers abused, neglected or treated as second class citizens. Far too many still stay but hopefully the trend will continue to rise and women will begin to love themselves enough to leave these situations. Women are keeping their maiden names or hyphenating more than ever as a way to honor their own family. I say we owe a huge debt and gratitude to the women who went before us and struggled to pave the way so we could have these choices!

upon finishing the thread.... ding ding .. we have TKO!

Sweetie · August 29th, 2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mel1973

If it's a woman who's raising the kid on her own 96% of the time, yeah, she's more of a parent...

I bet that woman that does raise the child 96% of the time don't mind taking his child support check though, some thing tells me he is the father at that time of the month.

Just because the child lives with the mom (which would account for the 96% of the time) doesn't mean the father is less of a father, in all cases.

DVS_one · August 29th, 2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrettyGirl

but 99% of people give their children their father's name.

BULLSHIT!!!!

go to your kids school... check the rosters of names and parents names. A lot smaller percentage actually match for all family members any more.

sensual · August 29th, 2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

Some people are so old fashioned. Of course my baby is going to have my last name. And if my last name differs from the father's name, so be it. He can have my name, too.

Why do I have to adapt my husbands name and not vice versa?

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsDark

She carried and birthed this baby, in the process getting to know and bonding with him and preparing for how life with him on a daily basis will forever after be. The male in this scenario was physically and emotionally mostly (if not entirely) uninvolved after sperm donation and already in the process of living a separate life that did not include either of them before the child was much more than a cluster of cells.

The only difference now is that since the child is here, he will have an opportunity (if he wishes, as he hasn't done so yet) to be involved with and have a relationship with this kid without having to be involved with her beyond being co-parents. Most likely she will have primary custody and he will do the parttime dad thing at BEST. Possibly he'll be more involved, if asked to pony up with a large number financially (funny how often money and spitefulness of having to fork it over or sometimes just "sticking it to the ex" are often good motivators to get men to be more involved with their kids). Possibly he'll talk a good game and end up being less involved (especially after he marries and has kids with another).

So....with all these factors, why the fuck shouldn't the child be a Moynahan? By default he already is and will continue to be a Moynahan to a much greater extent than he is or ever will be a Brady.

ITA. This is usually how it goes down for women in her situation, no matter what.

dolem · August 29th, 2007, 01:35 PM

It's funny that we are all arguing against PrettyGirl here. My opinion is that it's the parents choice to give their baby whatever name they choose. For all we know Tom and Bridget talked about baby names and he was totally fine with his son getting the last name Moynahan.

I have several friends who have dated men, gotten pregnant, seen that man leave and then had the baby. Should they then give their baby the last name of a man that obviously doesn't want anything to do with them? Someone who comes and goes whenever they feel like being a dad? I doubt it. I also think that if this was between two average people walking down the street no one would even care, it's because it's Tom Brady and everyone loves him that people are even talking about it.

sluce · August 29th, 2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweetie

I bet that woman that does raise the child 96% of the time don't mind taking his child support check though, some thing tells me he is the father at that time of the month.

Just because the child lives with the mom (which would account for the 96% of the time) doesn't mean the father is less of a father, in all cases.

Why should she mind taking the check provided to help support her child? I have seen you reference women taking child support checks as a negative a few times now and am just trying to understand why that is such a negative for you? (I don't mean that in a confrontational way - I am just trying to better understand your perspective) I would agree that if a women gets pregnant on purpose just so she can live off the father through support there is an issue. That happens so rarely. More often than not, couples break up after having children together. Sometimes a parent bails and doesn't uphold their end of the responsibility in a physical manner but the courts order them to pay support so that at least do that much. The courts can not order a parent to have visitation if they don't want it. At least the custodial parent then has resources to help raise the child. They must also bring in an income since child support is very, very rarely enough to even cover rent. The average child support order in the US is $350.00 per month. The custodial parent then must provide a home, food, clothing, medical/dental coverage, etc.

What upsets me the most though is when a women goes into a relationship with a man and he has to pay child support for his kids from a previous relationship and the new woman resents it. My sister-in-law was like that. She constantly bitched that my brother had to pay $1000 per month in support and that took money from her. She felt my brother should only have to support her and the 2 kids she brought with her from her first marriage. She and my brother then had a child together. When they split up you can bet your sweet ass that she expected him to support their child. He gladly sent the check each month right up until he won full custody. Then when the courts ordered her to pay support she was furious! In a perfect world parents would remember to keep their children's best interest forefront when they split up the family. I am happy that my ex and I were able to do that right up until he passed away 3 weeks ago.

Sweetie · August 29th, 2007, 01:42 PM

^ I don't think it's a bad thing if she takes the check, but if she is taking the check because "he's the father, he needs to step up" then he should also have some say in the way his child is name, raised and taught.

I just have a problem with women getting child support checks and then using the money on themselves and not their child. Yes, I speak very openly about this because I see this more often than not.

sluce · August 29th, 2007, 01:51 PM

[quote=Sweetie;794729
I just have a problem with women getting child support checks and then using the money on themselves and not their child. Yes, I speak very openly about this because I see this more often than not.[/QUOTE]

How do you define spending the money on themselves? If she is paying for housing, food, clothes, school trips, medical coverage and all the other stuff that comes up everyday raising a child, why can't she also buy herself something. I seriously doubt she is living simply off of child support. My ex paid support and and I was lucky enough that I didn't need it so I put it all in account for our daughter. If I had needed it to make ends meet though, no one should have a say in how I spent it as long as my daughter had all her needs met.

Sweetie · August 29th, 2007, 01:53 PM

She can't buy her self something because it's not called "mother support" it's calld "CHILD support" and that and only that is what it should be used for.

sluce · August 29th, 2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweetie

She can't buy her self something because it's not called "mother support" it's calld "CHILD support" and that and only that is what it should be used for.

Ok - I will agree with as long as the father is the sole source of income for the family. If the mom is bringing in the money too then she should be free to spend it howver she wants without anyone questioning her. If she can manage to cover all the bills and have some left over then it is hers to spend as she wishes.

Sweetie · August 29th, 2007, 01:59 PM

No, no, no, any left over child support should be put in an account and saved for the child's expenses; whether it be unforeseen matters or college. A mother should NEVER use the child support that a man is required to pay to buy her self stuff. (and that goes for men that get support from women also)

I will leave now because I don't want to get into a debate over this again. I feel real strong about this but there are a lot of moms on here that I know will feel differently

sluce · August 29th, 2007, 02:03 PM

I am not making point clearly enough. Let's say the non custodial parent pays $750.00 per month. The custodial parents clears $2000 per month from their own income. The living costs are $1500 per month. That means they are each contributing half. What the custodial parent has left over is theirs from her own income so they should be allowed to spend it as they see fit.