I have taken it for granted that boys shouldn’t be named girly names because boys are more likely to get picked on for being feminine than girls are to be picked on for being masculine (the same with clothes, for instance–a girl in masculine clothes might get picked on but she’s also often considered strong, smart, and sassy, whereas a boy in girlish duds would risk getting the you-know-what beat out of him). I oppose using boyish names for girls in most cases because I would like to keep some names for the boys that don’t set the boy up for teasing. I don’t think girls should have frivolous names, either, but there is at least a long tradition of gems, flowers and other nature names that end up sounding as dignified as lighthearted (in other words, cute names that still don’t make me think of pet names). I think it’s ultimately sexist, too, but in a different sense: parents choose boy names for their girls to project a “boyish” image (daring, strong, competent, witty, independent) rather than a “girly” image (delicate, pretty, sweet, sexy, innocent). I don’t think this is necessarily what people set out to do but it’s a subtle, persistent influence. I realize that this is changing over the years and that we have a lot more leeway with boy name perceptions than we used to, so that’s encouraging to see–maybe we are closer than I think to improvement in this area. In the meantime, I cringe to see my husband’s name, [name]Blake[/name], going to the girls. It’s one-syllable, doesn’t end in an “ee” sound, an “a” sound, or even the currently unisex “en” sound, doesn’t start with a vowel, and rhymes with “flake,” but people still want to use it for girls! At this rate, no name can be masculine enough; maybe we should start naming our sons [name]Ashley[/name] again and give up the fight. For the record, I think that there are so many beautiful and strong names for women that are underused that I don’t see the need to poach the manly ones.
I used to think so too, that too many good, unusual boys names were “slipping” and would never suit a boy again. There are definitely names that are girl names and so far still names that are boy names, and I had a little bit ago to say elsewhere about people naming babies after pets who had been given people names, and I think it applies here.
People put a lot of trouble to come up with a name, a name they love and sometimes I think they let a name grow on them too good they can’t see how gross it actually is, and then with popularity, nobody seems to notice, or say it anyway. Anyway, I see a popular trend of people giving people names to animals a lot, and nobody ever says well that’s a dog’s name, or I know too many cats with that name, to shy away from naming their child, haven’t read a lot about that so far. There are a lot of names that might be too “unusual” for a child and it’s ok for a dog for one person, and then another person doesn’t say well I guess you’re right - if it’s not too unusual for them, they still like it for a baby. It’s weird how a name can be too popular at the kindergarten and people just ugh on a name, but as long as it’s just a lot of animals, it’s ok.
So why when names “cross” to popular female names are they no longer cool for boys? I read the comment there where it was a free-for-all and give odd wackadoo names you would never saddle on a boy because they’d be fresh, unusual, artistic, decorative on a girl instead, or steal names with just the right equation of hard and soft or allusion to a feminine name that’s too soft. Then it’s even worse than it is from dogs and cats! [name]How[/name]? Girls are definitely people. [name]How[/name] come that name is never coming back?
I used to think it was sad that names went one way and never seemed to sound as strong for a boy anymore, but I think it would be cool if this trend trickled a lot harder until it became so impossible to name a boy that it became totally possible again. [name]Just[/name] one big pile of names, few or no gender associations. Instead of making everyone crazy about gender assignments and the importance of a name to deliver that information, people could just be boys and girls with the same names. I don’t know if that would ever happen, it’s just a thought. When I think of a name, I try to eliminate exposure and association and concentrate on the simple sound of it primarily. It’s not going to solve all the problems, but it would be nice to relax on a name you really like instead of having to find another name you don’t like as much because the world ruined a perfectly good name or several.
“It’s weird how a name can be too popular at the kindergarten and people just ugh on a name, but as long as it’s just a lot of animals, it’s ok.” <------ lol at this, karen! Touche! Maybe the animals thing is how we get names back into circulation by hearing them in some fashion again? Or maybe we just love animals better than other people’s children! My family pets almost always had food names or people names, including [name]Phoebe[/name], [name]Megan[/name], [name]Belle[/name], [name]Darby[/name], [name]Samson[/name], [name]Jasmine[/name], [name]Libby[/name], and [name]Tony[/name]. My husband’s dog was [name]Samantha[/name]. I’m so used to hearing people names on dogs that it doesn’t faze me much but when I asked my man what he thought about the name [name]Samantha[/name] he exclaimed “that was my dog’s name!” He likes the name [name]Megan[/name] and the first thing I thought of was not my cat but a cute name. It would be weird to me to name my child after [name]Megan[/name] the cat specifically, though. Maybe you’re right and all the names will have to go to the girls eventually and it’ll improve things; it’s certainly interesting to observe.