She didn’t exactly make an argument, but her point was pretty clear. Why quibble?
I agree that the trend of giving traditionally male names to girls pretty emphatically sends the message that “masculine” qualities are desirable and “feminine” qualities are not. It’s especially clear when you take into consideration the fact that there is no evidence of this trend operating in reverse (traditionally feminine names being given to boys), and, in fact, traditionally male names that have begun to see frequent use on girls are now often considered suspect.
I also think it’s interesting that there are multitudes of male name feminizations ([name]Georgia[/name], [name]Petra[/name], [name]Theodora[/name], etc.), but you rarely see a name that’s the masculine form of a female name. I posted a thread about it not too long ago, actually: Nameberry - Welcome to the Nameberry Forums (it got one reply, which I completely missed seeing until just now)
I’m glad this is being discussed and some sort of point is being made about it, granted, it’s the same point I’ve been pushing on Nameberry for ages: the whole idea of boys names on girls changes the categories from ‘boys names, girls names’ to ‘names for people, girls names’. Naming your little girl [name]Rhys[/name] is not making a statement of equality, it’s just labelling her friends [name]Isabelle[/name] and [name]Laura[/name] as inferior.
But this article isn’t well written. Its very noncommittal and frankly if I wasn’t already interested in both feminism and names I probably would have taken little from it at all.
I have no problem with genuinely unisex names, place names, nature names, virtue names etc - [name]Jordan[/name], [name]Rowan[/name], [name]Noble[/name].
[name]Rory[/name], [name]Ryan[/name], [name]James[/name] are NOT unisex. They are male names. Stop giving them to females, unless you’re prepared to not ridicule little boys named [name]Alice[/name] and [name]Lily[/name].
It seems to me that there is a disturbing trend of “[name]One[/name]/Ten Syndrome.” That is on a scale of 1-10, a baby needs to either be hyper-masculine ([name]One[/name]) or Feminissima (Ten). [name]Hence[/name] the profusion of lacy, lissome, liquid, substanceless girls’ names [[name]Lilou[/name], [name]Annabella[/name]], and near-cartoonishly masculine boys’ names [[name]Gunner[/name], [name]Ryker[/name], [name]Cannon[/name]].
I do think it makes sense to name a baby a name traditionally associated with its biological sex at birth. If later the child’s gender turns out not to match that sex, or to match it somewhat imperfectly, the child can adopt a new one much as s/he changes the rest of their identity, dress, etc. I don’t think it’s a big strike for feminism to name a boy a confusingly feminine name, just as we all agree it’s almost counter-productive to name a girl [name]Douglas[/name].
I’m dipping my toe into waters that are not my own here, but I do think divergent male sexuality is socially much more feared and unacceptable than divergent female sexuality. This is reflected in multiple attitudes and expectations placed on boys in areas which are much more important than names, but since Names R Us, I’ll give an example. [name]Just[/name] look at the nameberry description of my son [name]Antoine[/name]'s name: “your friendly neighborhood hairdresser.” The implication, of course, is that [name]Antoine[/name] is a gay name (because it’s French and somewhat soft; of course no one would ever say that about [name]Anthony[/name] or [name]Antonio[/name]), and being a gay name is obviously undesirable and mockable. I can’t think of a single name that is an ‘undesirable’ ‘lesbian’ name; they’re usually glossed as ‘tomboy’ or ‘boyish’ and viewed quite positively. [name]Hence[/name] the frequently expressed worries on nameberry by posters wondering whether ‘soft’ names on boys are OK, or if they should stick to the safety of the machismo camp, but I cannot recall a thread where a poster queried whether or not a particular name being considered for a girl was too masculine or hard.
[name]Blade[/name], thank you for making me look up a new word. Going to add lissome to my list of words to teach my students.
I have nothing to add without feeling hypocritical. I have admitted to liking [name]Asher[/name] and [name]Elisha[/name] for girls, although I would never do it and I would also never name a son [name]Victoria[/name]. This is quite fascinating, however, and I’m curious to see what else people have to say. I do agree with blade about the trend of "hyper-masculine"names for boys and “feminissima” names for girls.
I understand your point, but I winced when I read this. Comparing divergent female vs. male sexuality is like comparing apples and oranges: yes, more gay men were killed during the Holocaust, but corrective rape is so endemic in South [name]Africa[/name] that many lesbians cannot even leave their houses. It’s all oppression, but each “letter” in the GLBTQ acronym experiences unique manifestations of that oppression. We also have to take into account intersections of privilege. The idea that certain boys’ names are “gay” (and yes, the NB entry for [name]Antoine[/name] is hugely problematic) is homophobic, and it’s also misogynistic. [name]Male[/name] homosexuality is seen as undesirable because it’s coded as feminine…which says a lot about how our society views women.
No medals will be awarded, but I think–circling back to names-- that my original hypothesis stands as a possible explanation for the demonization and avoidance of feminine, soft boys’ names.
Your original hypothesis is that gay men are more oppressed than gay women. I’m telling you that this is a ridiculous comparison that completely discounts history, lived experiences, issues of intersectionality, and, you know, reality. It is not a valid argument. If you’re going to persist in trying to make it anyway, cite sources.
I’m loving this thread so much, I don’t even know where to begin - my thoughts are everywhere!
Okay, deep breath, tries to organize thoughts
My mother said something that rings so true for me: “There are no examples of feminine success, only masculine.”
It was a passing comment in a conversation I wasn’t a part of, but I took a lot from that. If I were to elaborate on it I would say: “There are little to no examples to feminine success, unless it’s sexual. To be successful is graded on a masculine scale.”
I hope that gets my point across.
In response to this comment:
My answer would be to use unisex names evenly, and stop using names that are meant for boys on girls.
I posted a thread on opinions on using the name [name]Eden[/name] on a boy, which is one of my favourite names, and many users thought is was too “feminine” or even that it was totally a girls name.
When [name]Eden[/name] is in fact far from a girls only name, and is arguable a male name if one wants to go into it’s origins and Hebrew history. Some comments said that [name]Eden[/name] sounded like a girls name, which I found weird since it sounds and awful lot like [name]Aiden[/name], which is not viewed as too feminine sounding…
Plus with the Hebrew pronunciation (Eh-den), it’s not girly imo at all.
I think education and correction is key.
I love the name [name]Eden[/name], and I’m not going to let it “Oh, but it’s used on girls…” deter me from possibly using it. It’s still on my list.
It bothers me when parents choose boys names for girls because it’s not meant for girls, and there are plenty of female options, it causes confusion and it’s just aggravatingly unnecessary to me.
As for unisex names, those are fair game! But when the parents select a name like [name]Phoenix[/name] or [name]Rory[/name] because “It’ll make people think she’s a boy, and be better for her…”, that makes me want to smash my computer.
There’s nothing empowering about a girl named [name]Ryan[/name] and there’s nothing degrading about a boy named [name]Eden[/name].
I love everything you’ve said here, and completely agree. Personally I think [name]Eden[/name] is totally unisex and would be excited to see it on a boy. Looking at my own list, the only really unisex choices are [name]Marlowe[/name], [name]River[/name], and [name]Saylor[/name] – even [name]Juniper[/name] skews female. I would love to see a list of truly unisex choices, not just boys’ names on girls but names altogether without a history of gender-specific use. As someone who tends to go for names with historical and literary associations, however, I’m not sure I would actually like any of the names on such a list; I think they would, by necessity, be modern invented names, or nature names (which, admittedly, I actually quite like).
I most definitely did not get that from [name]Blade[/name]'s post, nor did I see her use the term “oppression” in it.
She did say “socially more feared and unacceptable”, and that names that are classed as “a gay name” are undesirable and mockable. I don’t pick up on “gay men are more oppressed than gay women.” statement though.
[name]Even[/name] leaving aside the fact that I often find nameberry’s name descriptions to be far too subjectively worded and sanctimoniously delivered, re: [name]Antoine[/name]‘s entry: ugh. It’s a similar story for [name]Dorian[/name] - it’s decried as “somewhat feminine” in the male entry (also apparently its popularity has taken a “nosedive”), while the female entry calls [name]Dorian[/name] “attractive” (for a girl) and claims it "crossed the lake into the girls’ camp several years ago". This latter statement is particularly bizarre, since [name]Dorian[/name] has never ranked for girls, and last I checked, on average, there were something like 400-500 more male than female Dorians born per year. It bums me out that some real parents might be scared out of using perfectly legitimate names because some capricious and biased soul on nameberry described a name as “too feminine” (or “unstylish,” or whatever).
I feel like this could be a thread unto itself. (Has it been in the past?) I’ve been trawling through the database, looking to see if there were any particularly egregious entries also relevant to this thread. Apparently nameberry advocates gender-swapping [name]Ira[/name], and [name]Hollis[/name] has “gone to the girls”…even though in 2011 the ratio was 5:2 in favor of the boys.
“I don’t think saying one thing is more feared/oppressed than another means the second thing isn’t also feared/oppressed.”
‘More’ is a term of measurement, thus implying that oppression is a measurable quality – and that the “one thing” (gay men) is more oppressed than the “second thing”.
Thank you, and I’m glad to see someone else agree.
Most truly unisex names do tend to be nature names…which kind of bother me. Why are nature names viewed as unisex? Is it because it’s gender-less? If so, would [name]Lily[/name] on a boy be acceptable? Or no because it’s a flower?
What about [name]Fawn[/name] then? Which is a young deer, and a colour (according to wikipedia at least)?
What about [name]Briar[/name], [name]Garland[/name] and [name]Fern[/name]?
I think I’m going to compile a list of names that should be considered truly unisex, and equally appropriate for use on boys and girls.
I remember complaining on a thread about updates to the database that a boys’ name was described as “sissified”…I can’t for the life of me remember what it was, though!
Boys are named girl names these days. 26 boys in 2011 will have to go through the pain of having to answer to [name]Isabella[/name].
But I do think that word names, such as [name]Juniper[/name] or [name]Phoenix[/name] or [name]Gray[/name], don’t have a specific gender. Of course, I do have preferences on their genders, but in reality [name]River[/name] technically isn’t tied to either gender. Same with place names, like [name]Jordan[/name] or [name]London[/name], but not the ones that are traditionally male (i.e. [name]Paris[/name]).
I think I am going to start a thread on that, because it’s something I’ve noticed for a long time and has been quite irking to me.
I’ve noticed the boy-to-girl swapping a lot myself. (It’s not gender-swapping to me, because it’s not even) I wondered why some names that are clearly boy favouring are often praised for girls, then I realised a possible reason when I saw the names of the nameberry creators. It’s a personal taste thing.
A lot of things relating to names are personal opinion driven, rather than fact or even general consensus.
