[RANT/OPEN LETTER] Some of the girl names & descriptions on this website...

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.

If you feel this way please get in touch with the nameberry hq people. I understand how you feel and agree with you in some ways

I watch a handmaid’s tale as well and I don’t like the significance of this “name” (or even the sound of it as a name!) I think I don’t feel as strongly as you do, but well, I agree that it’s a non-name.

Now that you mention it, I’ve noticed this too. I looked at the comments on Offred and [name_f]Cherry[/name_f] and you’re definitely not the only one that feels this way. I don’t know why they add the comments they do, but it seems pretty flippant on more than a few names. Honestly, reading the forums is the main reason I come to Nameberry, but it’s a shame they might offend people by the way they write their opinions. It’s otherwise a great site. They have great blog posts with much more modern viewpoints, but I don’t know why that hasn’t always made it to their name pages.

I agree with the first part, but I think it’s interesting to discuss here!

I definitely agree.

Thanks. I have edited my comment

OK, this is a really important issue/question and I’m going to do my best to address all of your points!

First, Offred was added in the most recent slew of new additions to the database. 2017/18 was obviously a huge year in terms of this “name” coming to public attention and therefore seemed like a timely addition to what is the most comprehensive database of names – yes, predominantly baby names, but also important literary, cultural, historical, mythological, etc. names – on the internet (including many names with no history of use as baby names).

[name_m]New[/name_m] names are added all the time, but obviously it hasn’t been possible to include every single one ever used, so what tends to happen is that names get added as and when some big event or cultural phenomenon (such as the success of the recent TV adaptation of The Handmaid’s Tale) suddenly brings them to our – and the wider public’s – attention.

THAT [name_m]SAID[/name_m], I totally agree with you that the description accompanying Offred is inadequate and needs to make clear the true significance of this literary “name”. I will make sure to update it as a matter of urgency.

I am, in fact, currently in the process of working through all of the outdated, sexist, offensive, etc. name descriptions I can find on the site (including all of those mentioned in this old thread, and now this one too) and updating them. For example, you’ll notice that the male name pages for names such as [name_u]Ashley[/name_u], [name_u]Leslie[/name_u] and [name_u]Elliott[/name_u] are now worded much more neutrally. I have a running longlist of these to work through – and I’m adding more all the time as I stumble across them – so it’s incredibly helpful when people flag these up, as you have here (so thanks!)

As you suggest, many of these entries were indeed written back when the site creators’ first name books were published, and were moved across wholesale as a bundle of thousands when the site and its database were first set up. As such, there are various instances of very abrupt and/or outdated descriptions such as the “don’t you dare”-type ones, which I am expanding and updating whenever I come across them. Many have already been changed by [name_f]Pam[/name_f], [name_f]Linda[/name_f] and others over the years.

I do just want to note, though, that while I will be rephrasing, contextualising and sometimes completely removing “sexualised” descriptions like the ones you mention for [name_f]Lolita[/name_f], [name_f]Delilah[/name_f] and [name_f]Cosette[/name_f] (I personally don’t see the sexual side to that [name_f]Cherry[/name_f] description, though I do agree it’s too dismissive/reductive), I do think it’s important to try and give a full overview of names that parents might be considering for their babies, including any well-known literary or cultural associations. It would be disingenuous, for example, not to include the widespread [name_m]Christian[/name_m] perception of the Biblical character [name_f]Delilah[/name_f] in that name’s description, or to highlight the potential racial issues which might arise from using the name [name_f]Jemima[/name_f] in the US today (a point frequently discussed here on the forums). Again, this is why I absolutely agree with you that the Offred page as it stands is inadequate and needs updating ASAP.

I hope that goes some way towards addressing your questions and concerns? I’m sorry this has hit such a nerve with you; we are aware that there is an issue here and we’re doing our very best to improve name descriptions as quickly and comprehensively as possible. If you – or anyone else – do come across any other entries that you think need updating, please do PM me and I will add them to my list.

1 Like

As far as [name_f]Cherry[/name_f] is concerned, for those who don’t know, it’s sexualized because it’s a slang term in [name_u]North[/name_u] [name_u]America[/name_u] (and possibly other areas) especially widely used when the books are written. A “cherry” is slang for a woman’s virginity, also used in the way that saying “Pop her cherry” means taking a girls virginity by breaking her hymen.
So, yes, as a teenage girl it would be awful to be named [name_f]Cherry[/name_f], the writers didn’t sexualize it, the world did. [name_f]Imagine[/name_f] the things that can and will be said to a girl named [name_f]Cherry[/name_f]!

I definitely agree with what you are saying. I have been on and off nameberry for basically it’s entire existence and the sad part is the descriptions have gotten better over the years. It’s tiring.

Personally my issue with those kinds of “descriptions” on here is that they are biased opinions and not stated as neutral facts. It’s very easy to just instead say “[name_f]Cherry[/name_f] is also a slang term for hymen in some areas particularly the USA” instead of a snippy snide comment about how your daughter will hate you. I have noticed these kinds of comments on a lot of names, and I personally agree that there is no need for opinions (especially dismissive/ rude comments) when writing an informational page. I go on name websites to learn the meanings and histories of names, not the moderators opinions of them. Besides, that’s what we have the forum section for.

@katinka thank you so much for letting us know that something is actually being done about it, this has been a concern of mine for a while.

@thenameprincess I would be very surprised if [name_f]Cherry[/name_f] isn’t one of those that has been carried over from the original baby name books, with a description like that. When we add names now, we tend to try and give at least some information on origin, usage, popularity, cultural associations, etc. wherever possible.

And yes, I really am determined to get through all of these, as are [name_f]Pam[/name_f] and [name_f]Linda[/name_f]. I only started a couple of weeks ago (around other things), so as you can imagine there are still lots to get through, but if you flag any problematic entries up to me when you come across them, I promise I will get to them as soon as I can.

And I will update Offred and [name_f]Cherry[/name_f] tonight, on the back of this thread. Your comments and suggestions really do make a difference!

Agree 1000%!

One of the reasons there are also rude posters. If rudiness is considered okay by owners (or parents), others (or children) will think it’s perfectly okay to do so. Either post facts on the name or keep it blank.

Yes, a second the thank you!

I emailed Nameberry:

"I frequent your boards and came across this thread Nameberry - Welcome to the Nameberry Forums .

This user is upset about that fact that the name “Offred” is included in your database. I want to bring this thread to your attention because in my opinion this poster is correct.

“Offred” is not a name. It means “Of [name_m]Fred[/name_m]”. In [name_f]Margaret[/name_f] Atwood’s dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale”, girls are given to high-ranking men as sex slaves/forced surrogate mothers. When they are enslaved to a man, they are no longer allowed to use their own name but instead become known as “Of” + the name of the man. The main character is called “Offred” because she was stripped of her name when she was given to Commander [name_m]Fred[/name_m] Waterford.

Please reconsider having this name in your database. It is heartbreaking to think that there could be a little baby “Offred” out there, possibly inspired by your website."

Thank you saying this <3

I enjoy most of the name descriptions, but I have to agree that some of them make me uncomfortable. [name_f]Cherry[/name_f] being one of them. I’m okay with a light opinion on each name, I actually like it. I don’t want to naïvely start loving a name that’s problematic or is just blatantly bad. I also like a little bit of encouragement regarding names that I was hesitant to click on, whether that be because they are highly popular or too far out there. The description can often be a person’s first encounter with the name, and I think that’s important to remember. A person may also already be named that, and there’s no need to offend them, even if the ultimate goal is to discourage its use. I would hate to see the name descriptions be stripped back to only what’s factual, but I wouldn’t mind a little less snark.

No problem, it bothered me too.

I already got a reply. Someone from Nameberry changed Offred’s description on the website and wants to know what I think of the changes:

I do appreciate the changes, but to be honest, I still don’t feel like it belongs on a babyname website at all. And let’s be fair: the odds are good that a parents who names their kid something like Offred because it ‘sounds nice’ won’t even bother to read the description on Nameberry. It might deter some, though. What do you think?

Holy woah, this made a difference. Wow, thank you guys so much for backing me up so we could get Offred and [name_f]Cherry[/name_f] at least updated. I still don’t think Offred is a good fit for this database, especially since there are other names with arguably more significance, use, and that have been around for much longer that don’t have a place on here (Medusa). So the literary significance excuse doesn’t really fit for me. I don’t think [name_f]Cherry[/name_f] needs “hymen” specifically mentioned, but it’s definitely way way way better than it was. And I understand that I don’t get to veto what the site admins find pertinent. In any case, I honestly feel super empowered that this post worked in some respects–I thought I’d come back and find myself totally shunned and disagreed with. I’m honestly super grateful <3 internet hugs to all of you guys.