Part I
The other day I was having a discussion with R on the issue of "family name". It was more of a debate, and it centered around the appropriateness or inappropriateness of this system of "family legacy". The point in contention was basically whether a proper family name is essential and/or desirable, or whether it is outdated in the modern world and breeds intellectual, moral and gender prejudices. I am loath to remember how exactly the debate started, but it proceeded with R saying he'd prefer a son to a daughter, as a son would enable him to realize his unrealizable dreams, and also continue his family legacy. Now the staunch libertarian that I am, I was, needless to say, a bit offended, but we decided to take it as a point for a healthy debate.
His points were simple but not without thought: a) He wanted to be a great cricketer; a son would help him fulfill the dream (women's cricket is not as popular as men's); b) A son would be able to keep his family name. Complementing this line of reasoning he said that 1) Family system is essential to keep society in shape, even though the former may be patriarchal and flawed; 2) A family with different surnames looks appalling; 3) He admits that women do not get their fair share of recognition due to this system, but that this might be inevitable, and 4) The family provides an established standard for each of its successive generations to accomplish something in life, and without this concept of family lineage, such a measuring stick would not exist.
These are valid points, and deserve their share of acknowledgment. Points 1) and 3) are the key ones here. 2) is a pure personal opinion and 4) is an individual preference. So let me concentrate on points 1) and 3) here to form an analysis and express an idea. The detailed analysis in Part II.
