An Irksome Double-Standard (My Final Post Here)

Boy Names
1

If you read the title correctly, this is my last post on this website, for I have lost interest in naming. For my final post, I decided to comment on something I always found disgustingly hypocritical.

Why is names like [name_m]Adolf[/name_m], Saddam and Osama are completely unusable because of callous bearers but names like [name_m]Joseph[/name_m], [name_u]James[/name_u] and [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] are completely untouched?

Now, I know the answer, because [name_m]Joseph[/name_m], [name_u]James[/name_u] and [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] are common-place names in our society unlike the others mentioned, despite being born by [name_m]Joseph[/name_m] Stalin, [name_m]Jim[/name_m] [name_m]Jones[/name_m], Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski. But that’s the reason I’m angry, If you name your child [name_m]Adolf[/name_m] or Saddam, you are immediately tarred and feathered a [name_u]Neo[/name_u]-Nazi or Saddamist simply because neither of those names are “common” enough in our culture. Few people will actually think that you may actually like the names not because of their most infamous association, but simply just like the name for its meaning, sound, history etc. Nobody would ever accuse parents who name their child [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] of idolizing Bundy or the Unabomber simply because they aren’t enough famous Adolfs, Saddams or Osamas in our culture.

On to my second point, NAMES [name_m]DON[/name_m]'T KILL PEOPLE. The aforementioned men’s name could have been any other name and chances are, they still would have carried out their same atrocities. In fact, let me use 2 of Nameberry users favorites to further my point. If Hitler’s name were [name_m]Alexander[/name_m], Bin Laden’s [name_u]James[/name_u] (pretend he had Anglophile parents), would these name shy any of you away from using them? That’s and honest question.

Anyway, that was my rant. [name_f]Do[/name_f] you agree? Disagree? Let me know in the comments.

2

Certain names being associated with certain people while others are left untouched is just luck (or lack of luck); [name_m]Joseph[/name_m] has always been more popular than [name_m]Adolph[/name_m], all over the world, it’s a biblical name, it’s very classic and timeless and has been used for centuries in various variations.
And because there have been so many famous Josephs, people now (and in the past have) mainly associate(d) his last name with the person Stalin.
I can’t think of one famous [name_m]Adolph[/name_m] before Hitler, there probably weren’t many, so people started associating both his first and last name with him (similar to when you know 5 Michaels, you don’t quite associate the name with one particular person/character trait, while when you only know one [name_u]James[/name_u], when you hear the name, there’s always going to be that one person in your head).

I really wouldn’t call it a double-standard, but rather the ways of history; maybe in 200 years people won’t care as much anymore, maybe [name_m]Adolph[/name_m] will forever be a no-go name?!

3

I agree, it is a shame in a way but that’s how things are. Sometimes names are associated with unpleasant people and we all just have to live with it. I love the name [name_f]Lolita[/name_f] but having read the book, there’s no way I could bestow the name on a sweet baby girl. Also, [name_f]Jemima[/name_f] is another name I love but can’t use because of the Aunt [name_f]Jemima[/name_f] association. You’re right in that names that are less common seem to get stuck to the Hitler’s of the world but names like [name_m]Joseph[/name_m] remain untarnished. However, it’s not deliberate it’s more so because we know six or seven normal, nice [name_m]Joseph[/name_m]'s but only one, horrendous [name_m]Adolf[/name_m].

4

Basically what the previous posters have said. There’s a reason why nobody has touched [name_m]Lucifer[/name_m] or [name_m]Judas[/name_m] for centuries, and it’s because they’ve always been associated with badness. Also, what’s innocuous in one culture might be racist or in poor taste to use in the next, like the aforementioned [name_f]Jemima[/name_f], or even [name_u]Havana[/name_u]. So your question is why are names like Saddam, [name_m]Adolph[/name_m], and Osama out of the question, but names like Ted, [name_u]James[/name_u], and [name_m]Joseph[/name_m] are still usable, in spite of their associations? Maybe you’re just looking at the wrong part of the world. I can’t tell you how popular [name_m]Adolph[/name_m] was before the rise of Hitler, nor can I tell you its popularity now, but it’s never been a common name outside of Germany. Likewise for Saddam and Osama. They’re Arabic names, and have never reached the mainstream outside of the countries which they’re most frequently used, aside from when one infamous person with said name makes international news. Overall, everyone’s association with a name is personal, and yes, while big associations can tarnish or boost a name’s popularity in certain cases (which you can easily see if you look at a few graphs, like how names from Twilight skyrocketed when the fandom was in full swing), it depends on way more factors than the famous people who may or may not have used the name. Maybe names like Theodore did take a plummet in the rankings during and around the time of Ted Bundy. I can’t say for sure because I haven’t looked at any graphs. But just from observing the forums, I can say that people are still conscious of certain associations being latched onto their child because of one or two negative people who have borne that name in the past.

I don’t understand what’s disgusting or hypocritical about that. It’s like asking why isn’t the name [name_f]Caoimhe[/name_f] isn’t more popular in [name_u]America[/name_u], or why isn’t the name [name_m]Patrick[/name_m] more common in Japan. Because they don’t assimilate to the respective culture, so names like that are completely foreign to the society. All in all, people choose names for their children that suit their culture more often than not, which is why you’re more likely to meet an [name_f]Emma[/name_f] or a [name_m]Jake[/name_m] as opposed to a [name_f]Tzipora[/name_f] or a [name_u]Jean[/name_u]-[name_m]Jacques[/name_m]. I’m sure if you looked a little harder, you would see that there are several dozen likable, even beautiful names that are not in common use just because of one big association that they have. [name_m]Just[/name_m] off the top of my head, [name_m]Casper[/name_m], [name_f]Lilith[/name_f], [name_m]Rudolph[/name_m], etc… I can say with confidence that [name_m]Casper[/name_m] likely wouldn’t be a household name in the US without [name_m]Casper[/name_m] the Friendly Ghost. Not all associations are damning, but you’re looking through a very narrow lens if you don’t take in consideration the name’s history in certain regions before asking why the general population shies away from it.

I don’t think we ever talked directly, but it’s a shame to see you go. [name_f]Hope[/name_f] you enjoyed your time on Nameberry and maybe we’ll speak again if your love of names revives!

5

I don’t think what you’re describing is a double standard at all.

Osama and [name_m]Adolf[/name_m] are names that have single-associations, and because the association is to mass murderers, people don’t use them. There are so many Josephs and [name_u]James[/name_u] in this culture that those names are frankly anonymous; you can associate them with anyone from [name_m]Jim[/name_m] [name_m]Jones[/name_m] to [name_u]James[/name_u] [name_u]Taylor[/name_u] to [name_m]Jim[/name_m] from the Office to [name_u]James[/name_u] [name_u]Madison[/name_u] to the many [name_u]James[/name_u] you’ve probably known in your personal life. Frankly, these names shouldn’t be compared and there is no double standard here. People don’t use single-association names when the association is a positive one either; how many little Oprahs or Hillarys or Baracks do you know?

[name_m]Even[/name_m] if [name_m]Adolf[/name_m], for example, was a nice name outside of the association with Hitler, the reality is that the name is associated with a man who killed 6 million innocent people. There are an infinite number of names to choose from, and many of them are nice; it is kind of unbelievable that [name_m]Adolf[/name_m] is the only name you could love using for your child. No, naming your child [name_m]Adolf[/name_m] won’t make him into a murderer, but it will send a message that you as the namer are at best extraordinarily culturally insensitive and at worst a neo-nazi.

Conversely, you could argue that these biases are easily overcome; after all, our President’s middle name is [name_m]Hussein[/name_m], which most Americans associate with Saddam. It certainly didn’t stop him from being elected.

6

I don’t think what you’re describing is a double standard at all.

Osama and [name_m]Adolf[/name_m] are names that have single-associations, and because the association is to mass murderers, people don’t use them. There are so many Josephs and [name_u]James[/name_u] in this culture that those names are frankly anonymous; you can associate them with anyone from [name_m]Jim[/name_m] [name_m]Jones[/name_m] to [name_u]James[/name_u] [name_u]Taylor[/name_u] to [name_m]Jim[/name_m] from the Office to [name_u]James[/name_u] [name_u]Madison[/name_u] to the many [name_u]James[/name_u] you’ve probably known in your personal life. Frankly, these names shouldn’t be compared because they aren’t associated with one bad person, and there is no double standard here. People don’t use single-association names when the association is a positive one either; how many little Oprahs or Hillarys or Baracks do you know?

[name_m]Even[/name_m] if [name_m]Adolf[/name_m], for example, was a nice name outside of the association with Hitler, the reality is that the name is associated with a man who killed 6 million innocent people. There are an infinite number of names to choose from, and many of them are nice; it is kind of unbelievable that [name_m]Adolf[/name_m] is the only name you could love using for your child. No, naming your child [name_m]Adolf[/name_m] won’t make him into a murderer, but it will send a message that you as the namer are at best extraordinarily culturally insensitive and at worst a neo-nazi.

Conversely, you could argue that these biases are easily overcome; after all, our President’s middle name is [name_m]Hussein[/name_m], which most Americans associate with Saddam. It certainly didn’t stop him from being elected.

7

You are talking classic vs non classic names. It’s not a double standard. [name_m]Adolf[/name_m] was never a classic name in the US (or several other countries). [name_m]Joseph[/name_m], [name_u]James[/name_u], and [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] are. Most people’s only association with [name_m]Adolf[/name_m] and Saddam is evil.

8

I don’t see why it would be upsetting to you. [name_m]Don[/name_m]'t use [name_u]James[/name_u], [name_m]Joseph[/name_m], or [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] if it bugs you so much.

9

I have to say that I agree with the pps. I opened this post expecting this to be another rant about boys’ names that have “gone girl”, or “cutesy” names used for girls but not boys, both of which - despite being debated to death at times on here - are in fact double standards. As others have said, what you describe is not a double-standard, for all the many excellent reasons listed above.

First, these are foreign names which have not been assimilated by English-speaking culture, and there’s nothing surprising or “unfair” in that. Many names of foreign origin do assimilate - especially those which share sounds with names already used in the language ([name_f]Roxanne[/name_f], [name_f]Zara[/name_f] and [name_f]Maeve[/name_f] spring to mind) - but many more never do, even when they are not hampered by association with evil dictators. [name_m]How[/name_m] many little girls do you know called [name_f]Zainab[/name_f] or Malgorzata? Or little boys called Adebambo or Takeshi? So it’s not surprising that if a foreign name DOES come loaded with negative connotations, it’s doubly unlikely that it will suddenly catch on for English/American babies.

Second, the single assocation thing puts people off. For every bad [name_u]James[/name_u], [name_m]Joseph[/name_m] or [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] people have heard of, there are many more positive associations, both famous and personal. As pps have said, these names are not tied to one person, because they’re perennial classics in English-speaking countries, which have been worn by our presidents and prime ministers, teachers, parents, grandparents, friends… It’s ridiculously simplistic and reductive to compare these names to foreign “one person” names like [name_m]Adolf[/name_m], Saddam and Osama. As @june2013mom so astutely pointed out, people don’t even use positive “one person” names like [name_f]Oprah[/name_f] or [name_m]Barack[/name_m], so why on earth would they choose something so inextricably tied to one infamous villain?

I also think that, when it comes to baby naming, parents are thinking about the child who will have to wear the name they choose for life. A classic name like [name_u]James[/name_u] or [name_m]Theodore[/name_m] will be easy to wear - they feel solid, dependable, suitable for anyone, and come with nicknames for every age and personality. Giving your child a deeply controversial name like Saddam or [name_m]Lucifer[/name_m] might be a great way to “take a stand” if you really see such situations as a double-standard, but can you imagine introducing yourself as [name_m]Lucifer[/name_m] for the rest of your life? Giving one of the names you mentioned to an American child in 2016 would not only shock and offend many people, but it’s likely that it would cause endless problems for your child for the rest of their life, maybe even putting them in danger. Is it any wonder parents want to avoid that fate for their precious offspring?

10

Okay, 1. I agree with all the previous posters. This is not a double standard. You even seem to understand why people name the way they do, since you countered your own argument in your post.

  1. I really had to comment in reference to your “if Hitler’s first name was [name_m]Alexander[/name_m], would we avoid the name [name_m]Alexander[/name_m] so strongly?” inquiry.
    No, we probably wouldn’t. For similar reasoning to why we don’t avoid “[name_m]Joseph[/name_m]” despite the [name_m]Joseph[/name_m] Stalin connection. And what reason is that? Because for every person who says “Oh, [name_m]Joseph[/name_m]? As in, [name_m]Joseph[/name_m] Stalin?” You can come back with “No, like my husband” or “like the [name_m]Saint[/name_m]” or “like the baseball player [name_m]Joe[/name_m] DiMaggio”-- there are SO MANY overwhelmingly neutral or positive connections that it simply drowns out the negative. With [name_m]Alexander[/name_m]: [name_m]Alexander[/name_m] the Great, [name_m]Alexander[/name_m] [name_m]Hamilton[/name_m], [name_m]Alexander[/name_m] [name_m]Fleming[/name_m], [name_m]Alexander[/name_m] [name_m]Graham[/name_m] [name_u]Bell[/name_u], the list goes on.
    If you were to say “[name_m]Joseph[/name_m]- say the first connection that comes to mind!”, not many people would immediately think “Stalin”. But, if you were to say “[name_m]Adolf[/name_m]- say the first connection that comes to mind!”, the overwhelming response would be “Hitler”, and Hitler alone.
11

The negative associations of these common names are diluted by the associations with non-evil historical figures (or, at least, more neutral ones) and by overwhelmingly wider use in the general population.

[name_m]Just[/name_m] curious, OP, are you a teen?