I thought girls didn't use junior, III, etc. because traditionally girls adopt their husband's last name, so they would no longer have the same full name as their mother.
Funny enough, I think it’s common for the female middle name to be a mom/grandma/aunt name.
Is it a specific cultural thing I wonder
It's apparently not an uncommon tradition in several areas of the world to either have either the first or middle name be shared, and then a unique name for the unmatched one (e.g. John Alan Doe, John James Doe, John Matthew Doe - Alan John Doe, James John Doe, Matthew John Doe).
My son was born in a country with doesn't write those in a birth certificate. When we went back, guess what -- they still added it by deriving it from my name.
Not every society wants to be modern.
Modern society cuts family ties which is a lot of times not so great, but on the other hand it saves lots of people from abusive relationships.
Once you can leave abusive parents or siblings, whole world of opportunities opens. Then again on the other hand not everyone can deal with such a freedom.
Yet still I am personally supportive of modern approaches where people can choose their destiny and not being tied to a family legacy.
I'd rather see the name of the father be stuck to the kid so if he's a failure, everyone knows who failed him.
Therefore, you just invite confusing answers and useless discussions in your reply.
I consider my values to be very centrist and common sense, however every year i learn more and more that what i consider to be common sense isnt very common.
This level of condescension paired with an equivalent level of ignorance is astounding, especially as the only reason I asked you was because I wanted to steelman your position, but it was so vague that this was hard to do.
I originally asked if you meant the nuclear family with your statement "why humans organized the way they did for millennia before we decided to change everything.", because I wanted to know if you are aware that the nuclear family as a dominant structure is _a lot_ younger than that.
But in another reply, you said that you meant to talk about the nuclear family and the raising of children by the whole tribe. These are very different from each other, and that's why I asked you to clarify. Now I know that you just wanted to express a general feeling of regret that things aren't the way you image them to have been in the past, and your comment didn't contain any real content besides that, I can move on with my life.
Dunno about other cultures, but in Poland it was very common until relatively recently to refer to wives/daughters by a suffixed first name (not surname) of the husband/father. If Mary Higgins married Jack Smith, from then on she'd be known as Jackowa, and their daughter Betty would be called Jackówna. This is distinct from naming children after their ancestors. The custom predates surnames by hundreds of years, but served essentially the same role of tying the women to their men.
So while there is a bias towards mother custody of the kids (around 2/3), there is still 1/3 of the kids where it is not the case.
Also, not having full custody of kids doesn't mean the father is leaving completely from the kids life. More often than not the kids need to stay with one parent because job and cost of living forces them to be more regionally apart (only 37% of kids living in same town). That doesn't mean the father do not see the kids in the weekends/holidays nor contribute financially to study.
So the reality is way more nuanced than you make it out to be in a small comment.
Why do you frame it as only fathers can fail children? Or only men can do wrong? Women can pay for studies as well, and have just as much duty to their children.