Nobody said that the people who are naming their daughters with masculine names are sexist. I don’t think they are. The trend is in my opinion. I believe people think the name is strong, badass for a girl (thanks society), cool and cute. They don’t even notice it, they follow the trend and do it unconsciously.
Also old Greek and Latine names actually have a gender. It depends on their etymology and initial form. For example, Greek names ending in -ος (-os), -ης (-is) ou -ας (-as) are generally masculine, because those are masculine declensions. Names ending in -η (-i), -α (-a) ou -ω (-o) are generally feminine. Names that aren’t Greek have another declension. Latine and Greek declensions are generally gendered and it mostly leads to gendered names. I often see Roux or Beau suggested for girls, and they are masculine French words. The feminine forms are Rousse and Belle. If tomorrow my husband says that “le soleil est belle” I will correct him because soleil (sun) is a masculine word in french and then he should use “beau”.
Since this has escalated to the “unisex/masculine names on a girl is sexist!” debate that I despise so much, I now feel compelled to defend myself seeing as I have [name_u]Rowan[/name_u] and [name_u]Parker[/name_u] in my top 10 for girls, and my long list includes many other unisex choices.
FIRST OF ALL, the reasons I adore [name_u]Rowan[/name_u] and [name_u]Parker[/name_u] have nothing to do with them being “stronger” than other girl names, not consciously or unconsciously. I’d just as easily have daughters named [name_u]Rowan[/name_u] and [name_u]Parker[/name_u] as I would have daughters named [name_f]Maeve[/name_f] and [name_f]Iris[/name_f], and I’d also have [name_u]Rowan[/name_u] and [name_f]Maeve[/name_f] or [name_u]Parker[/name_u] and [name_f]Iris[/name_f] or whatever. I love [name_u]Rowan[/name_u] because it has a soft sound (a reason why I love [name_f]Maeve[/name_f]), it’s versatile (I can picture it on any type of girl… which is a requirement for any name on my list), and its nature connection (a reason I love [name_f]Iris[/name_f]). I love [name_u]Parker[/name_u] because it’s an honor name (a reason I like [name_f]Cleo[/name_f]… it also honors a little girl named [name_u]Parker[/name_u]) and I love its spunk (a reason I love [name_f]Maeve[/name_f], [name_f]Juno[/name_f], [name_f]Eleni[/name_f], and many others).
The unisex/masculine features of the names are neutral points for me, neither positive or negative. If my [name_u]Rowan[/name_u] meets a little boy with her name, I will not be bothered. Similarly, I will not be bothered if I have a son named [name_u]Finley[/name_u] (one of my favorite boy names) who meets a girl with the name. I don’t think that [name_u]Rowan[/name_u] and [name_u]Parker[/name_u] don’t work for boys. I just prefer them for girls.
I think all of my girl names are equally strong. They wouldn’t be side-by-side on my list if I didn’t think that. So I hope everyone claiming the “superior strength” of unisex names compared to feminine names are the reason why parents choose them stretched before they made that kind of reach.
Another point I’d like to add is the triviality of the “fight against unisex names”. Feminism has much bigger fish to fry than the names people give their kids. Domestic violence? Rape culture? Pay gap? Much bigger issues than whether someone names their daughter [name_u]Ryan[/name_u] or [name_f]Rhiannon[/name_f]. Our fight should be directed more towards changing how women are viewed in society REGARDLESS of their name and outside of the name debate altogether. We need to make it so a girl named [name_u]Sawyer[/name_u] doesn’t have a “leg up” (whether the “leg up” thing is true or not, which I can’t comment on because I haven’t done any research on the subject) or isn’t viewed as “stronger” compared to a girl named [name_f]Arabella[/name_f], not try to keep parents from naming girls [name_u]Sawyer[/name_u] in the first place.
I like [name_u]Rowan[/name_u] and [name_u]Parker[/name_u] more for girls and I would use both on a daughter in a heartbeat, just as I would use [name_f]Iris[/name_f] or [name_f]Maeve[/name_f]. Anyone with objections can die mad about it.
Chiming in as one of the very few men on this site (and one with two “feminine” middle names). I have felt for a long time that gender roles when it comes to names are FAR too rigid in our society. My first name is pretty masculine: [name_m]Raphael[/name_m]. My middle names are [name_f]Sparrow[/name_f] [name_u]Lynn[/name_u], both passed down from female relatives. As a little kid, I went by Lynnie, and I have no problem with that nickname even now.
I also really like names like [name_u]Evelyn[/name_u], [name_f]Hazel[/name_f], and [name_f]Hyacinth[/name_f] for boys… but believe it or not, these all have a history of masculine use. However, even if they didn’t, I still would have no problem with them for a boy, especially in the case of nature/word names which are not gendered (at least in English) in everyday speech and therefore should not be rigidly gendered as names.
[name_u]Ashley[/name_u] is my name ([name_f]Ashleigh[/name_f]) but I also know boys with that name. I actually think it started as a male name. Same with [name_u]Paris[/name_u]. [name_f]Rose[/name_f] I find hard to associate with a boy.
I know a male [name_u]Madison[/name_u] (I can’t say boy because he’s 25ish).
Great conversation. It seems that ‘boys names for girls’ get about 200x the attention that ‘girls names for boys’ get - but I think that’s a much more interesting conversation and really challenges people to open their mind about names. It seems like most people can easily imagine traditionally masculine names on girls, but really can’t stretch their mind the other way. I like the challenge!
I’ve always thought the following ‘feminine’ names would be great on boys (if based solely on sound and imagery):
[name_u]Clare[/name_u] (although this went both ways in the past)
[name_f]Margo[/name_f]
[name_f]Maren[/name_f]
[name_f]Rose[/name_f]
[name_u]Kennedy[/name_u]
[name_u]June[/name_u] and [name_f]Juno[/name_f]
I love [name_u]Whitney[/name_u], [name_u]Marion[/name_u], [name_u]Bellamy[/name_u], and [name_u]Vivian[/name_u] for boys, which all have a history of masc use but do seem to be regarded as femme by today’s standards.
I would love to see more floral/botanical names on boys.
I like that someone else mentioned [name_f]Rose[/name_f], I think [name_f]Lavender[/name_f], [name_f]Jasmine[/name_f], [name_f]Iris[/name_f], [name_f]Fern[/name_f], [name_f]Clover[/name_f], [name_f]Florence[/name_f], [name_f]Hazel[/name_f], [name_f]Lilac[/name_f], [name_f]Ivy[/name_f], [name_f]Myrtle[/name_f], [name_f]Heather[/name_f], and
[name_f]Peony[/name_f] could all easily work as masc names we if get over the idea that flowers= feminine.
You are so correct about how much discussion revolves around boys names on girls and rarely the other way around and then how much more challenging people find it when it is discussed. And YES to [name_u]Clare[/name_u] and [name_f]Juno[/name_f]. I know the meaning of the name [name_f]Juno[/name_f] but it has always sounded more masculine to me. I was also surprised when I first learned that [name_u]Clare[/name_u] was once a unisex name between the 1880s and 1930s. [name_m]How[/name_m] wonderful it would be if that ever made a comeback.
Haha. I didn’t mean to sound preachy and I am sorry if I offended anyone, but the double standard does get to me and then I get passionate about it.
I love Fern, Clover and Heather out of your suggestions too. There is no reason why floral/botanical/nature names shouldn’t be gender neutral in my opinion.
[name_u]Whitney[/name_u], [name_u]Marion[/name_u], [name_u]Vivian[/name_u], [name_f]Lavender[/name_f], [name_f]Clover[/name_f], [name_f]Lilac[/name_f] and [name_f]Peony[/name_f] are so cute I love it!
I personally struggle with this issue because I have one boy and another on the way. If I am truly honest with myself, I always imagined having badass feminist daughters with nature names - most of which could of course be used by either/any gender. I considered all of the following for my sons:
[name_u]Juniper[/name_u]
[name_u]June[/name_u] (I had an uncle named [name_u]June[/name_u] but it seems this is now also seen as largely feminine)
[name_f]Willow[/name_f]
[name_u]Wren[/name_u]
[name_f]Fern[/name_f]
[name_u]Sequoia[/name_u] (I know [name_u]Sequoyah[/name_u] is originally a male name)
I know I can (and hopefully will) still raise badass feminist sons! - but I have really had to come to terms with interrogating why I had a desire for daughters. It’s been an interesting journey and finding the “right” names has been a big part of that.
I am just so hesitant to use some of these names on a boy because, since they ARE used for significantly more girls than boys [name_m]IRL[/name_m], people keep saying “that wouldn’t be fair to your son, he will be teased” etc. etc. I absolutely agree that is sexist talk, but at the same time I really don’t want to saddle my children with any unnecessary burdens. It is easy to say “I would love to meet a little boy named [name_u]Juniper[/name_u]” or “I wouldn’t blink an eye at a boy named [name_f]Fern[/name_f]” but it is another thing to actually use it. Maybe I am just being chicken! I don’t know.
[name_u]Alexis[/name_u] was traditionally a boy’s name, I think. I may be wrong.
Otherwise, I’ve heard [name_u]Courtney[/name_u], [name_u]Cassidy[/name_u], [name_u]Shannon[/name_u], [name_u]Sandy[/name_u], [name_u]Lindsey[/name_u], and [name_u]Auden[/name_u].
I’m really interested in this debate as it’s something I toss up with quite a bit. Although we may all disagree with this in our rational thinking level, internalised sexism is something almost nobody can fully escape from, and it’s not anyone’s fault in particular. Changing the mass psychology and inbuilt beliefs of people is very difficult, so I think the real question is: will deliberately using traditionally opposite gender names impact the entirety of internalised sexism?
In my opinion, it won’t. Naturally as the mindset changes, we will see that indication through names but I don’t think people should necessarily go out of their way to do that because it doesn’t really fundamentally change much.
Okay but I absolutely adore [name_f]Rosaline[/name_f] and [name_f]Rosamund[/name_f] on boys, I think it’s so fun also:
[name_f]Diana[/name_f]
Floral names (definitely agree, all floral and nature names in my mind are fairly gender neutral except for [name_f]Poppy[/name_f] for some reason and I don’t know why)
[name_u]Winter[/name_u]
[name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] and most variants
[name_f]Roxanne[/name_f]
[name_f]Cassiopeia[/name_f] (this is a huge guilty pleasure haha)
[name_f]Clementine[/name_f]
