Agreed that having some sort of a family system is good. The first part of my friend's premise is not flawed; the second is. Patriarchal family systems should NOT be acceptable in modern society. For too long they have sustained themselves through unified public (read male) opinion. Society till recently was much simpler and it was easy to define social roles. Of course this disregards the fact that women's opinions were rarely, if ever, taken into account. The society has survived. Religion has triumphed based on the subjugation of one gender to another. It is my firm belief that people who set social mores used their superior intelligence to make facts suitable to themselves, put logic into an opinion, and declared this the will of God. Women were never taken into account - indeed- this is evident from the fact that hardly ever are women priests. They are not allowed into places of worship as priests. Sometimes they are not allowed in at all, because they might "defile" the place. It should be amply clear what regard most traditions hold for women. People have been conned for centuries and continue to be conned.
So what's the relation between this and family name? Following the patriarchal line is the classic proof that women have no identity. Their names change when they marry. Sometimes their husbands change their first names too. Never heard of the other way round. Consider this - in Indian society, it is obligatory for the female to stay in her in-laws house, but a shame for the man to do similarly.
The changing name is a strong symbol of lack of identity. It needs to be corrected - even at the cost of causing the so-called initial confusion in recognizing a person. Here's a suggestion - the child should take either the father's or mother's surname till he/she becomes an adult, and then choose a different name altogether. This would also be a great way to throw away expectations or perceptions as well as provide motivation to excel personally.
I do not attach great importance to maintaining family "legacy" and identification with a family. People pretty much know their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandparents, aunts, uncles etc. even if they are named differently right? And there is unlikely to be any loss of affection if one is named differently.
The whole concept of familial legacy brings to the fore concepts such as "family honour" and other crap. There is no logical explanation for "family honour". How is my family to be shamed if I indulge in a criminal act? Does "upbringing" explain everything? Why do I have to decide what is right and wrong based on what my family believes? Do I have no identity? The irony of this is every member of a family adheres to the "family principles". In other words, there are some widely accepted rules, mostly imposed by social perceptions. Everyone in the family follows them, so no one really decides. And who decides social ethics? Some godmen claiming to have knowledge of or from the Divine, mostly not negotiable. Crap.
And women, as the physically weaker sex, with more emotional inclinations than men in general, are the worst sufferers. Anything a woman does is subject to the measuring stick of "family honour". This idea is extraordinarily hyped up. There is no sound logic behind this - it is cold opportunism translated into dictum over centuries. Period.
