Ahem.
I have seen several posts over the past year which are troubling to me. It seems there is still a very large stereotype about names and careers, and names preventing people from having certain careers. I just replied to a thread in which this was addressed, and I want to open up this can of worms in a thread of its own.
(Note: This discussion pertains to names which are fairly standard, feminine names, as my concern here is why some parents avoid choosing names that are traditionally or inherently feminine because they “Can’t see a CEO or President bearing that moniker.” Tryndee/Kreatif/etc. names have their own set of problems in this category, and those problems aren’t related to their femininity.)
Basically:
I think it’s horsefeathers that is believed that a woman with a name like [name]Primrose[/name], [name]Alessandra[/name], [name]Effie[/name], or the like can’t do or be whatever she wants to do or be in life, or that she won’t be taken seriously.
Basically, I’m issuing a call to arms. We do not have to conform to a patriarchal paradigm to be taken seriously. We do not have to put aside our femininity to be powerful. Our daughters do not have to be named androgynous or masculine names just to ensure they will be successful if they choose to enter corporate or political arenas. There is nothing wrong with a powerful woman having a feminine or girly name. If you like those names, then by all means, use them. Likewise, if you like androgynous or masculine names, use them. But don’t be a part of the group that says being traditionally girly/soft/feminine is weak. We must stop handicapping women by participating in the promoting of the patriarchal paradigm that says all things masculine are good and powerful and all things feminine are weak and unimportant.
Being feminist and forward-thinking doesn’t mean we must slough off girly things and make ourselves fit into a masculine paradigm. It’s about equality for all–so [name]Taffy[/name], [name]Posey[/name], and Prim are just as viable as names for CEOs and Presidents as are [name]Addison[/name], [name]Emory[/name], and [name]Ruth[/name]. [name]One[/name] of the most powerful women I know goes by [name]Candy[/name]–and by age 30, she had a BA in history and music, an MA in political science, a law degree, and most of a PhD in English (which she is about to complete at 32). She is licensed to practice law in two states and taught at two universities while working on her degrees. On top of that, she is also an entrepreneur and an amateur actress, and though she could choose to go by [name]Candace[/name], she calls herself [name]Candy[/name] with pride. She is not embarrassed or even concerned that her name is not “substantial” enough because she herself is.
Therefore, I say choose a name you like for your daughter. [name]Don[/name]'t worry about that name keeping her from being the next president. If she wants to be president or CEO of a major corporation, a feminine name won’t be the thing that holds her back.
/step down from soapbox.
Other thoughts?
(I base a lot of thinking on [name]Simone[/name] de Beavoir’s discussion of The Second Sex, where she explains that making the genders equal under the law doesn’t mean one gender conform to the other–it just means that we are acknowledging the legitimacy of both and saying that the law should be blind to gender. This is an oversimplification of her work, but it’s basically saying that we’ve allowed the feminine to be viewed as being of less value than the masculine, and even feminists are guilty of this, and that this must be stopped.)