apothecary Posted August 8, 2007 http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/08/1999997.htm A New Zealand couple is looking to call their newborn son Superman - but only because their chosen name of 4Real has been rejected by the government registry. Pat and Sheena Wheaton say they will get around the decision by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages by officially naming their son Superman but referring to him as 4Real, the New Zealand Herald newspaper has reported. The Wheatons decided on the name after seeing the baby for the first time in an ultrasound scan and realising their baby was "for real". They decided 4Real was the best way to write it, but the name was rejected because the registrar said a name had to be a sequence of characters. Pat Wheaton said he was considering appealing against the decision through the courts, but whatever happens he will not be budged on his choice. "No matter what, it's going to stay 4Real," Mr Wheaton said. "I'm certainly not a quitter." A spokesman for the Department of Internal Affairs, which operates the registry, told the newspaper that discussions with the Wheatons about their son's name were continuing. The baby is now two-months-old. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chilli Posted August 8, 2007 Hehe, crazy fucking kiwis... why don't they just call him For Real? It is so funny how they are calling him Superman, I guess to spite the registry office. I knew a guy who changed his name to Lucifer by deed poll to piss off his mum, who was a Christian, he was quite a character. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legba Posted September 9, 2007 No more little Supermans OFFICIALS in Venezuela are attempting to crack down on some of the silly names that parents are giving their children. The National Electoral Council has proposed a bill banning names that expose children to "ridicule, are extravagant or difficult to pronounce". If approved, it could mean the end of names like Edigaith, Mileidy, Maikel and Superman – at least two Venezuelans are called Superman. Although similar measures are already in place, it is up to the discretion of the registry authorities as to whether a particularly silly name is allowed. A list of 100 'appropriate' names has been suggested. news.com.au ...so what about if their last name is 'Hunt'; are they forbidden to call their son 'Mike'... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amulte Posted September 9, 2007 LOL reminds me of another culture in another time, they had a list of names and your childs name had to be one thats on the list. that was back in Nazi Germany under hitlers rule. maybe they will go for the list as the next step to prevent the horror of 'silly names'. pretty sad that the next right they are taking away is naming of children guess i wouldnt be able to name my child "Rainbow Cinnamon Gumdrop", "Parsley Panda" or "Steve". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ace Posted September 10, 2007 Being that I have a fairly unusual name (not as stupid as 'superman', mind you), I feel a lot of similarity to some of these folks in that it can be irritating meeting new people and continually being asked 'How did you get that name?', or 'What were your folks smoking?', etc... But still, that sort of thing should be entirely up to the parents. If kiddies arent happy with their given name, they are able to change it later down the track, or just find a nickname that they'd prefer and introduce themselves as that. How can someone tell another person what to name their children? That is utter rubbish! Arent we all getting sick of knowing 50 odd 'Johns', 'Peters' and 'Steves', all related or within a 50km radius of your home? What is so bad about some of the others mentioned in the article, such as 'Maikel'? I know I wouldnt call my son/daughter that, but I'm sure as hell not going to lose sleep if my son/daughter were to become good friends with someone with an unusual name... Reminds me of a time when I met one of my friends dads - 'Dirk': Dirk: 'So you've got a stupid name too?' Me: 'Yep, gotta love them 'free-spirited, out-there' parents... ' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chilli Posted September 10, 2007 Would it be okay to call a child "dickwad"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrBumpy Posted September 10, 2007 Would it be okay to call a child "dickwad"? No worse then calling it 'fuckstain' -bumpy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shruman Posted September 10, 2007 My uncles name is Wayne King, thats 4real. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ace Posted September 10, 2007 (edited) Would it be okay to call a child "dickwad"? If it had some sort of meaning other than an insult - i.e. if it represented something sentimental (I know how absurd that sounds, especially with this example ), then why not? No doubt in our society the kid would be put through hell because of the name, but if its value exceeds the pain, then it would probably be worth it. Like I said, it is up to the parents (it really is something that comes with the 'parent package' - I guess its a 'thanks' for all the sh!tty nappies and long nights, not to mention everything in between...). If the parents are that disrespectful to their own kids that they would call them 'dickwad', 'f*ckstain' or 'superman' in a society as harsh on kids as ours (as in schoolyard bullying), then they shouldnt have had the kids IMO. Seriously, would you respect your folks if they called you superman or dickwad? How about Andrew Johns or Albert Hoffman? It all comes down to meaning and cultural interpretation. Picking names for kiddies is a very long and difficult thing for a couple, and this is one of the many things that comes up regularly - how wierd is too weird? Edited September 10, 2007 by Ace Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chilli Posted September 10, 2007 Would it be okay to call a child "dickwad"? If it had some sort of meaning other than an insult - i.e. if it represented something sentimental (I know how absurd that sounds, especially with this example ), then why not? No doubt in our society the kid would be put through hell because of the name, but if its value exceeds the pain, then it would probably be worth it. Like I said, it is up to the parents (it really is something that comes with the 'parent package' - I guess its a 'thanks' for all the sh!tty nappies and long nights, not to mention everything in between...). If the parents are that disrespectful to their own kids that they would call them 'dickwad', 'f*ckstain' or 'superman' in a society as harsh on kids as ours (as in schoolyard bullying), then they shouldnt have had the kids IMO. Seriously, would you respect your folks if they called you superman or dickwad? How about Andrew Johns or Albert Hoffman? It all comes down to meaning and cultural interpretation. Picking names for kiddies is a very long and difficult thing for a couple, and this is one of the many things that comes up regularly - how wierd is too weird? It started out as a joking comment, but I guess there is a point to be made there... after all if parents who give their kids names that will engender social and psychological harm to the child probably shouldn't have had the kids, maybe it is okay to restrict certain names out of concern for the child's welfare? hehe!?... just askn?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auntyjack Posted September 10, 2007 my old man made me wear a short sleeved blue safari suit to a wedding when I was 11yo because there was 'NOTHING WRONG WITH IT ...WHEN IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR MY UNCLE IN 1968'. Considering there were several 11 and 12 yo girls at the wedding, it would have been much kinder to name me DICKWAD! Where’s my lawyer...daddy didn't hug me enough. I have an alternative view to this topic.....I'm allllll for it! I think its just peaches if the government wants to TAKE BY FORCE the parental responsibility away from the child, then all 'approved for reproduction' CITIZENS should give birth at a state facility where the children are immediately removed from the dangers and influence of a mature non government sanctioned unsupervised adult parent. All communication (no photos) can be via hand written (a typed response could be considered cold and detrimental to the childs fragile developing personality and emotional state) in A5 no larger, Federal Government stationary (unregulated personal or perfumed stationary leads to inequality issues between the subjects..ermm i mean the children)....this will ensure a emotionally, mentally stable and obedient generations for terms to come. Yes sir...the terrorists will have no where to hide!!! On another point, if we can't be trusted to name our flesh and blood...can we really be trusted to vote? I only ask because I am not approved to answer this. Please forward all responses to the department of intellectual assessment for approval before posting. (after all we don't want all this wishy washy 'opinion trash talk' circulating around) Subject: Auntyjack Approval Certificate: KKK765 Area: Zone 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legba Posted September 10, 2007 hmm... i guess if you really wanted to call ur kid dickwad and the authorities stood in ur way you could easily get away with richard ward. Phar quit might be pushin it... you realise these kids will grow up and in all likelihood, they will have ur address. One of these days, u gotsta reap what u sow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nothinghead Posted September 10, 2007 my old man made me wear a short sleeved blue safari suit to a wedding when I was 11yo because there was 'NOTHING WRONG WITH IT ...WHEN IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR MY UNCLE IN 1968'. I'm with Voltaire on this one - although I don't agree with the name 4real I don't think the government should have the power to make them rename the kid, and it looks like the father has outsmarted the renaming policy with his cunning plan to refer to the child as 4real anyway. Maybe some obligatory (free) lessons in child rearing would be more appropriate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shruman Posted September 10, 2007 "I'm with Voltaire on this one - although I don't agree with the name 4real I don't think the government should have the power to make them rename the kid, and it looks like the father has outsmarted the renaming policy with his cunning plan to refer to the child as 4real anyway. Maybe some obligatory (free) lessons in child rearing would be more appropriate." So u do'nt think the government should have the right to tell u what to name ur kid but they should have the right to tell u how to raise them? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nothinghead Posted September 10, 2007 No shruman, I think that the government should provide education in child rearing knowledge, so that the parents can make informed decisions for themselves. A lot of parents have no idea about how to raise children, especially if they had a shitty upbringing themselves, and at the risk of assuming about these particular people I would argue that someone who thinks it is a good idea to name their child "4real" has not thought very deeply about the impact of parenthood decisions on the wellbeing of their child. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shruman Posted September 10, 2007 "No shruman, I think that the government should provide education in child rearing knowledge, so that the parents can make informed decisions for themselves." Great I can't wait for the parents this is how u raise ur kids pamphlet "A lot of parents have no idea about how to raise children" & the government does? "I would argue that someone who thinks it is a good idea to name their child "4real" has not thought very deeply about the impact of parenthood decisions on the wellbeing of their child." Thats ur assumption & opinion, "the wellbeing of the child", so what the kids gonna get teased, if they do'nt tease him bout his name they will find something else, its what kids do. I hardly think the naming of a child will impact on their wellbeing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nothinghead Posted September 10, 2007 Pamphlet? Check back what I wrote: classes does not = pamphlet. Furthermore, tell me the correlation between the politics of drug education and parenting education, I'd be interested to know. Somehow I don't picture "the government" in classrooms teaching parents family skills. I think they would outsource the work to trained professionals, don't you? If you don't think a name affects the upbringing of the child, feel free to take IllegaBrain's suggestion on board and call any kids you have "dickwad" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Monk Posted September 10, 2007 I would argue that someone who thinks it is a good idea to name their child "4real" has not thought very deeply about the impact of parenthood decisions on the wellbeing of their child. 4Real! But seriously, I think you and shruman are envisioning a completely different level of parental ineptitude. I believe the type of parents cough has in mind are headed for rearing a complete headcase with severe social/emotional problems due to very poor parental decisions/guidance. You know, not the dad that just drives a fuggly Buick and drinks daily, the other dad that names his son Ben when he knows damn well their last name is Dover and his son is gonna be ridiculed for life. I agree that someone needs to help certain folks (who likely shouldn't be reproducing anyway,) but I'm not sure the government could pull it off. The addage "good enough for gov't work" kinda makes me feel unsettled about them advising parents. Am I the only one who thinks of the Johny Cash song 'A boy named Sue' when hearing this kinda thing? "Well I know you hate me and you got the right to kill me now and I wouldn't blame you if you do. But before I die, you better thank me for the gravel in your guts and the spit in your eye, 'cuz I'm the son of a bitch that named you Sue." -FM Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nothinghead Posted September 10, 2007 I think shruman just wants a little attention. But really while it is far from ideal to have the government having these types of classes they are realistically the only organisation who could make them compulsory, and let's face it - if this service is just offered, somehow free of charge by say an NGO, how many irresponsible people can you imagine attending? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shruman Posted September 11, 2007 "I think shruman just wants a little attention." Yeah that must be it cause noones opinion would ever differ from ur own & I actualy believe everything u wrote I just disagreed for a little attenetion & who better to get it from then the almighty cough cause we all value his/her opinion so greatly, love me, hate me, look at me,LOOK AT ME! *cough sarcasm cough* I'm done with this topic I stated my opinion u stated urs, FM I think u were on the right track. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nothinghead Posted September 11, 2007 Yeah that must be it cause noones opinion would ever differ from ur own & I actualy believe everything u wrote I just disagreed for a little attenetion & who better to get it from then the almighty cough cause we all value his/her opinion so greatly, love me, hate me, look at me,LOOK AT ME! Don't care to answer any of the relevant questions then, I guess? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auntyjack Posted September 11, 2007 http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/08/1999997.htmA spokesman for the Department of Internal Affairs, which operates the registry, told the newspaper that discussions with the Wheatons about their son's name were continuing. The baby is now two-months-old. If they can't sort it out his name soon will end up being "OIYOUTHERE" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
