Oh, finally. I’m one of the first.last@gmail folks, which I assumed would never change when I was 13 years old (hah!). Fast forward a few years, I got married, and am stuck with my old name in the address.
Honestly the one who is at fault here is Google. If first.last and firstlast are treated as aliases, they straight up should not allow people to create them once the first exists, rather than just send emails to someone else. I've tried to respect my Australian brother's privacy (like not reading his therapist's emails and such), but not everyone is gonna do that.
I used to also think that Google were screwing up by allowing a 'clash' of firstname.surname and firstnamesurname, and maybe they did a bit in the 2004-2009 period, but with lots of testing over the years (sending test emails to both), I'm confident now it's 'just' other people's emails getting 'simplified' too much when being told, and it ends up being sent to me.
I do however think Google shouldn't have allowed that alias situation to arise.
I also think (based on the fact that my 'un-dotted' email alias has been successfully used to sign up for various services for the other people) that many online services just have very poor sign-up validations of emails.
The dots are ignored.
I remember a decade+ ago when this was discovered as some issue and caused a bunch of drama in the blogosphere.
I had to give up using the address.
You can do hyphenated last names for a kid and let the kids decide what names they want to carry forward for the next generation. Or they can make up their own. The point is it’s up to them and they can choose whatever they want and not be coerced to do something because of some tradition that is rooted in sexism.
I don't think Belgium's feelings will get hurt, besides wait until you learn about all the other things that Leopold II did.
AND: Hope gmail will rollout this feature asap, so I can FINALLY adjust my email address too.
There have been matriarchal societies in history, but they all ceased to exist. Make of that what you will.
let motherLastName = "Carter Hughes"
let fatherLastName = "Miller Thompson"
let childLastName = "Miller Carter"
let childFullName = "Jean Paul Miller Carter"
You might ask, —“Why does the father’s last name go first and the mother’s second?”— That’s an old tradition, and it can change whenever enough people in our society agree. As it stands, the father’s family name tends to persist down the family tree, while the mother’s family name often disappears in each generation.
Or so that is how it works in many countries around the world.
The names of their grandmothers get dropped.
Only a partial improvement over just dropping the mother's name.
In the country where he lives (Belgium), the parents get to decide which family name the kids get.
Not true at all. You can trivially have two family names in a full legal name. In fact many cultures do exactly that to this day.
Also worth noting that the male's name being preferentially propagated makes a lot of sense in a society where the best off frequently inherited their vocation from their fathers.
Keyword being "practically". Just because there is an alternative doesn't mean society will adjust.
And hyphenation isn't a solution, it only works for one generation.
"It isn't practical to do" and "society at large didn't go this direction" are very different statements.
Hyphenation is two names in a trench coat. Maintaining two names indefinitely works just fine as long as you discard rather than endlessly compound. Presumably the only requirement is that it be straightforward to trace any given lineage.
The traditional approach is for women to keep their maternal name and discard their paternal name on marriage while men do the opposite. But of course any scheme could work, up to and including each person arbitrarily choosing which name to discard (not sure how they decide on ordering in that case).
Another historical approach is the Foo Barson, Baz Fooson (Barson) approach. That scheme treats the male and female lines as being entirely separate so it doesn't quite match what you're after but it was quite practical.
Discarding names doesn't preserve lineage. If you need a book to trace the names, then the point of using a name for lineage has failed.
> The traditional approach is for women to keep their maternal name and discard their paternal name on marriage while men do the opposite
It sounds like this scheme is "men keep one name lineage, women keep another".
Which, IMO, has the practical drawback of not identifying the current family unit. Lineage was important, but so was gathering all folks together into a household. When taxes, religious ceremony, etc. occurred, there was one household name on the roster responsible. This was particularly important in societies where men held certain rights for the household.