Why… TF. is [name_f]Offred[/name_f] on this database? Is this not a BABY name website? Where has there been a baby named [name_f]Offred[/name_f]? Why is this relevant to the website? Why would you include a name that is literally the replacement of a name, a wiping of an identity, a name that is literally as far as you can get away from a name besides using numbers to identify a person? It is an anti-name. But even if it were, what does it represent? Girls being forced in to sex slavery – being violently raped by men and women. And on top of that, as if all that wasn’t enough, IT’S NEVER BEEN USED AS A BABY NAME.
I understand that there are names on here that have negative meanings. [name_f]Lolita[/name_f]. [name_f]Lilith[/name_f]. [name_f]Pandora[/name_f]. Myriads of other mythological names that generally come with sexual backstories. But those have some record of use in most if not all cases. Why would you add a name that has not been used anywhere? As far as reports go, this is an unused name.
If you’re arguing literary significance or some other garbage excuse to add a name you think should be on a BABY site despite its total amoral meaning and lack of use, lets look at some more obvious names you somehow overlooked in that pursuit. I mean, honestly, Voldemort isn’t even in this database, and what he does is tame compared to the story surrounding “[name_f]Offred[/name_f],” not to mention has had way more popularity and cultural impact. Can someone please tell me how [name_f]Offred[/name_f] is more relevant to this website than Voldemort? I mean, where’s Palpa-fcking-tine’s representation if we’re including a category of What To Never Name Your Child So Help You God. Sauron, perhaps? Fcking CRUELLA the literal puppy killer!? Might I suggest Medusa, the woman who was cursed as a punishment for being raped? Let’s add her for literary/cultural significance, as the collection you’ve started with [name_f]Offred[/name_f] truly can’t be complete without her.
[name_m]Alas[/name_m], no. No people browsing this website will never stumble upon Cruella. But. Good thing, we have [name_f]Offred[/name_f], arguably one of the most traumatizing names possible for a girl. It’s way [name_m]WAY[/name_m] worse than all of those other ones. But no. Thank the baby name gods we didn’t leave [name_f]Offred[/name_f] out as a plausible option for newborn baby girls.
And while we’re on the topic, I could see there being some kind of justification for adding [name_f]Offred[/name_f], maybe. Maybe. But… come ON, every single name has some kind of opinion about its merit and worth as a choice, but freaking [name_f]Offred[/name_f] has a write up that looks copied from Wikipedia? It literally uses the tamest language you possibly could to describe the history of the name: “fertile women like [name_f]Offred[/name_f] are kept by men for the purposes of reproduction.” First of all, SPARE ME. She’s forcefully, brutally, stripped of her rights and her autonomy, literally existing for the purpose of rape and sexual slavery. But let’s sugar coat it. Dear searchers, do not name your child [name_f]Apple[/name_f], and do not even consider [name_u]Storm[/name_u] for your daughter (though it’s okay for a son). And “[name_f]Tammy[/name_f]” as a nickname? “[name_m]Don[/name_m]'t you dare!” (see [name_f]Tamar[/name_f]). But [name_f]Offred[/name_f]? No comment. Has anyone seen what the “from the experts” says about [name_f]Cherry[/name_f]?! It’s literally one sentence: “Why give your future teenager even more reason to hate you.”
What an utterly rude, pretentious and absolute DIRTY (borderline sexualization), snarky, one-liner on a FRUIT name (they have a strong opinion about the fruit names, these writers). Can I point out that even [name_m]ADOLF[/name_m] isn’t that strongly worded: “not an option for any sensible parent” amongst paragraphs of other background, history, and text. But [name_f]Offred[/name_f]? No comment.
I’ve noticed for a while their pattern of totally trashing perfectly fine name choices. I’ve seen them stomp on sexual names for girls while lauding the same quality in boy names (see: [name_m]Nico[/name_m], praised for being “great” and full of “sex appeal,” while “sex kitten” [name_f]Lolita[/name_f], “temptress” [name_f]Delilah[/name_f], and “coquettish” [name_f]Cosette[/name_f] are considered usable in spite of such qualities). I’ve seen them note sexual deterrents for mythological names, but never post that same information on the pages of the mythological perpetrators (see [name_f]Callisto[/name_f], and then see [name_m]Zeus[/name_m], arguably the rapiest raper in the history of mythology). I’ve seen them make a statement on the validity of a race argument ([name_f]Jemima[/name_f]).
That stuff might have been okay to say, think, and do when their name books were written, but it’s totally insensitive and straight up weird now. They need an editor, someone younger or at least more with-the-times to update their old-fashioned rhetoric.
But for some reason, including [name_f]Offred[/name_f] the way it was really threw me over the edge. And, for the sake of any future parent that may stumble upon [name_f]Offred[/name_f] on this website, delete it or change the description. No need to shy away from those harsh judgments you’ve been so used to passing.