So I’ve noticed in a number of posts, on this and other sites, people asking for suggestions of masculine or unisex names because they want a “strong” name for their child.
It has got me thinking about the unstated implication that recognisably feminine names (e.g. [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f]) are somehow “weak” names. This idea does give me the irrits a bit, as it seems to me to play into outdated/sexist stereotypes.
I just wondered though if anyone else has noticed/thought about this too, and what your take on it is?
Someone else can probably word this in a more eloquent manner than I, especially running on no sleep. I’ve noticed a similar trend when it came to boy names on girls. You can list a whole bunch of non “frilly” girl names ([name_f]Mavis[/name_f], [name_f]Tamsin[/name_f], [name_f]Neve[/name_f], etc.), but they always go back to a masculine name. The boys list usually ranges pretty masculine too.
I don’t know where the idea that feminine names are weak came from. Out of the top 100 influential women on the [name_m]Forbes[/name_m]’ list, only 1 goes by a male name ([name_u]Drew[/name_u]) and it’s her middle (probably because she shares her fn with her mother). There’s no proof that having a male name gets you ahead in life. “Women today get the majority of college degrees in [name_u]America[/name_u]. It doesn’t matter what kind — associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral — women beat men in all the categories. In the 2009-2010 academic year, women earned 57.4 percent of all bachelor’s degrees.” Some schools still sway one way or the other, especially STEM, but with more push for the sciences and math in school I doubt it’s going to come down to a name.
I’ve noticed this too and it bothers me a great deal. There still seems to be a pervasive stereotype that Daisies will be silly and simple but Dylans will be spunky and strong willed.
Part of the problem is that parents are much more willing to use names traditionally given to boys for their daughters but won’t use traditionally female names for their sons.
It’s all well and good recognising that girls should be allowed to be ‘masculine’ but we have to allow boys to be ‘feminine’ too, otherwise all we are doing is reiterating that femininity is somehow weaker.
I hadn’t noticed. I think of strong names as something with meaning (a positive one) that makes you imagine a person who is successful with their endeavours. regardless of what they may be. For example I think [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] is a strong girls name. Shes the freakin queen! but [name_f]Daisy[/name_f] doesnt sound as strong to me. For male names i feel like [name_m]Hector[/name_m] is a stronger name than [name_u]Tyler[/name_u]. I dont know how better to explain it. When i think of a strong name i dont automatically think it needs to be a male name. I just think it needs to be a name with some staying power. Nothing openly trendy or made up. like [name_f]Sarah[/name_f] is stronger than [name_u]Skye[/name_u]. [name_f]Bridgette[/name_f] is stronger than [name_f]Brittany[/name_f]. [name_u]James[/name_u] is stronger than [name_u]Jordan[/name_u]. Not that theres anything wrong with the less strong names, they just dont feel as strong to me. I wouldnt call them “weak” either, just simply not as strong. im not sure im explaining this well, just took a sip of my morning coffee so i might be half asleep still but i hope you get the idea.
Eh, this has been hashed about on here several times, but it really just boils down to each individual’s preferences and point of reference. I will use the adjective “strong” in reference to a name, but never “weak”. To me, strong means substantial, rooted in history (or at least common usage at some point), one that ages well, works well as a full name (so no nicknames as first names, with a few exceptions) and that it doesn’t sound sugary/cute-sy. Thus, [name_m]William[/name_m] is strong. [name_m]Willy[/name_m] or [name_u]Billy[/name_u] is not. I find [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] very strong, btw. [name_f]Lizzie[/name_f], no. [name_f]Beth[/name_f], no. [name_f]Macie[/name_f] no. [name_f]Margaret[/name_f], yes. [name_m]Benjamin[/name_m], yes. [name_u]Bentley[/name_u], no. [name_m]Brody[/name_m], no. [name_f]Giana[/name_f], yes. [name_f]Gigi[/name_f], no. It is hard to explain, though. I don’t think that strong automatically refers to males though. People still like to stir the pot and think that, but no, that isn’t everyone’s agenda.
As far as people using more masculine names/traditionally male names for their daughters…I think that is just to be edgy and cool. You know, trying to be nonconformist, but subscribing to a trend in actuality? I’m not sure why naming your daughter [name_m]Wyatt[/name_m], [name_u]James[/name_u], or [name_u]Dylan[/name_u] would make her more special than if she had been named [name_f]Grace[/name_f], [name_f]Sarah[/name_f], or [name_f]Jane[/name_f]. But hey, gotta use children to prove a point, huh? that’s what irritates me, personally. But to each their own. I’m only responsible for naming my own kids and pets.
I think it has sexist undertones when people give their daughters very male names, but would never think about giving their sons feminine girl names. I often wonder why that is. We can name girls [name_u]James[/name_u] or [name_u]Elliot[/name_u], but can’t name boys [name_f]Sarah[/name_f] or [name_f]Sophie[/name_f].
(I think it sucks because I’d love some pretty girl names for myself, honestly. I wish I could be named [name_f]Claire[/name_f] or [name_f]Fleur[/name_f] or something.)
Thanks very much everyone for your thoughtful comments. I’m genuinely curious as to others’ thoughts on this topic, and it’s interesting to see that other people besides me have been mulling over this as well.
I have the same feeling and it makes me sad Especially when I see a girl named [name_u]Elliott[/name_u] (the parents could have used Elliette instead) or [name_u]James[/name_u]. Giving an established boy name to a girl as a first name is anti-feminist, in my opinion.
However I like strong and soft girl names for girls and strong and soft boy names for boys
I kind of agree but it’s our fault. Not just Nameberry’s but people who use it and outside of the internet. We often attack names for being used on the opposite gender without looking at the names meaning , combo or anything else (I find myself being guilty of this quite often too). I think what needs to happen is we need to stop the notion that names should be for one gender or the other.
I agree to some of this, but I don’t think it’s better to attact someone for wanting to use a male name to a girl, without even knowing the reason behind it (I have seen this happen before).
Strong/weak names are different to each people, but that doesn’t mean that someone that name their daughter [name_u]James[/name_u] is sexist for example.
Maybe I should just clarify, in regard to my original post, that I have absolutely no issue at all with some people preferring masculine or unisex names - that’s fine of course, and a matter of personal taste. Where I was raising a question is when these non-feminine-gendered names get equated specifically and explicitly with strength, because of the (it seems to me) inbuilt assumption that feminine-gendered names (whether “frilly” or not) are therefore not strong.
Anyway, thanks again everyone for the thought-provoking responses.
Masculinity has always been considered the stronger force in our world.
During the latter half of the 20th century when the second wave of feminism took off, people wanted their daughters to be more masculine. They gave their daughters male names like [name_u]Tracey[/name_u] and [name_u]Drew[/name_u], because people thought that girls needed to be more masculine in order to succeed in a man’s world.
As a result, people still subconsciously equate strength with masculinity. So, in the minds of some, while a girl named [name_f]Jane[/name_f] would be ‘cute’, a girl named [name_u]James[/name_u] would be ‘tough’, ‘spirited’, ‘domineering’, ‘powerful’ etc. Nameberry is capitalizing on this, by showcasing male names such as [name_u]Tobin[/name_u], [name_u]Max[/name_u], [name_u]Elliott[/name_u] and [name_u]Rory[/name_u] as ideal choices for modern girls. But there are no feminine names on this site, or most other sites, that are displayed as positive choices for boys.
This is because, during the second wave of feminism, while parents were busy teaching their daughter was it was okay to be masculine, they weren’t teaching their sons that it was okay to be feminine. As a result, feminine/effeminate/less manly ANYTHING – be it a name, or a colour, or a toy, was and still is openly discouraged for boys. Because femininity is second best. It’s a rather sad reality, in my personal opinion.
…
Having said that, for me personally, strong and weak names are not defined as masculine and feminine. A strong name, to me, is something that makes me think of strength, e.g. – long history, bold sound, sold appeal etc. Whereas a weak name, to me, is generally just a name that sounds simpering or nasally. Therefore, the traditionally masculine [name_u]Evelyn[/name_u] is a name I would consider to be a strong choice for a boy, whereas something along the lines of [name_u]Wendell[/name_u] I often consider to be weak. For girls, something with a sturdy sound like [name_f]Gertrude[/name_f] or [name_f]Eudora[/name_f], would be seen as strong, whereas a name that is very common, or cutesy, like [name_f]Maisie[/name_f], I would see as a weak choice. But even so, the names I see as ‘weak’ aren’t automatically seen as bad choices. Because at the end of the day, it’s the person that makes the name.
Masculinity has always been considered the stronger force in our world.
During the latter half of the 20th century when the second wave of feminism took off, people wanted their daughters to be more masculine. They gave their daughters male names like [name_u]Tracey[/name_u] and [name_u]Drew[/name_u], because people thought that girls needed to be more masculine in order to succeed in a man’s world.
As a result, people still subconsciously equate strength with masculinity. So, in the minds of some, while a girl named [name_f]Jane[/name_f] would be ‘cute’, a girl named [name_u]James[/name_u] would be ‘tough’, ‘spirited’, ‘domineering’, ‘powerful’ etc. Nameberry is capitalizing on this, by showcasing male names such as [name_u]Tobin[/name_u], [name_u]Max[/name_u], [name_u]Elliott[/name_u] and [name_u]Rory[/name_u] as ideal choices for modern girls. But there are no feminine names on this site, or most other sites, that are displayed as positive choices for boys.
This is because, during the second wave of feminism, while parents were busy teaching their daughters that it was okay to be masculine, they weren’t teaching their sons that it was okay to be feminine. As a result, feminine/effeminate/less manly ANYTHING – be it a name, or a colour, or a toy, was and still is openly discouraged for boys. Because femininity is second best. It’s a rather sad reality, in my personal opinion.
…
Having said that, for me personally, strong and weak names are not defined as masculine and feminine. A strong name, to me, is something that makes me think of strength, e.g. – long history, bold sound, solid appeal etc. Whereas a weak name, to me, is generally just a name that doesn’t tick those boxes. Therefore, the traditionally masculine [name_u]Evelyn[/name_u] is a name I would consider to be a strong choice for a boy, whereas something along the lines of [name_u]Wendell[/name_u] I consider to be weak.
For girls, something with a sturdy sound like [name_f]Gertrude[/name_f] or [name_f]Eudora[/name_f], would be seen as strong, whereas a name that is very common, or cutesy, like [name_f]Maisie[/name_f], I would see as a weak choice. But even so, the names I see as ‘weak’ aren’t automatically deemed bad choices. Because at the end of the day, it’s the person that makes the name.
I kind of agree with a sentiment a previous poster made about how we can’t judge everyone by the same standards when it comes to topics like these. People love to set up a rhetoric of feminist vs. sexist, girls can be strong vs. boys can be weak, but really it’s not so black and white.
[name_u]Reese[/name_u] Witherspoon’s full name is [name_f]Laura[/name_f] [name_f]Jeanne[/name_f] [name_u]Reese[/name_u] Witherspoon, and [name_u]Reese[/name_u] is her mother’s maiden name. I have no clue why she specifically chose to go by [name_u]Reese[/name_u] as her stage name, but I seriously doubt her parents chose [name_u]Reese[/name_u] due to some deep seeded sexist reason when they have such a personal tie to the name. [name_f]Jessica[/name_f] [name_m]Simpson[/name_m] named her daughter [name_m]Maxwell[/name_m] [name_u]Drew[/name_u] after her husband’s middle name and his mother’s maiden name, and her own grandmother’s maiden name. Ryan Reynolds named his daughter James after his father that passed away, and he’s even admitted it’s a weird choice, but it’s one that has personal significance to him.
The gist is that some of these names have more history and substance than we give them credit for. Yes, while it’s true some parents give their daughters traditionally masculine names because they wan’t them to sound “strong”, and these same people would balk at giving a girl name to a boy, that’s on the parents. Kids grow up and then the rest of us have to live with them, but the best we can hope for is that the kid sees through their parents’ ignorance and goes forth and does better in our rapidly progressing society. Other than that, it’s beyond control. [name_m]Even[/name_m] if they named their daughter [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f], if the parents subscribe to traditional gender roles, then the kid is going to grow up hearing girls should do this, boys can’t do that, etc. So then it becomes a question of nature vs. nurture. Do girl Dylans grow up to be automatically spunky and feisty? Or are parents who wish for a fierce girl and give her a masculine name in hopes it will create one any more or less sexist than the parents that give their children traditionally gendered names?
Back on the subject, our society isn’t free of sexism by a long shot, but we really can’t control what people name their kids. I have to echo what a few users have said about more rooted, traditional names sounding more strong than most modern, short, and/or cutesy names. [name_m]Oliver[/name_m] sounds more grounded than [name_u]Ollie[/name_u], [name_u]James[/name_u] sounds more professional than [name_u]Jaden[/name_u], a [name_f]Maria[/name_f] sounds less flimsy than a [name_f]Minnie[/name_f]. It goes both ways, really.
I agree with much of what has been posted on this thread, and I’ve noticed that there are a few “rules” that many people have consolidated. In my opinion, what makes a “strong” name is:
A full name rather than a nickname, i.e. [name_u]James[/name_u] rather than [name_u]Jamie[/name_u], [name_f]Abigail[/name_f] rather than [name_u]Abbie[/name_u].
In much the same sense, a “traditionally” spelled name will often sound stronger than a “creatively” spelled name, i.e. [name_u]James[/name_u] rather than [name_m]Jaymes[/name_m], [name_f]Abigail[/name_f] rather than Abbygayle.
In my personal opinion, what makes a name “strong” is not whether it’s masculine or feminine. To me, a “strong” name depends on how much history and prior usage it has. For me, [name_u]James[/name_u] and [name_f]Cecily[/name_f] and [name_m]Callum[/name_m] and [name_f]Elinor[/name_f] will always sound stronger than names like [name_f]Renesmee[/name_f] and [name_f]Whizdom[/name_f] and [name_u]Boo[/name_u].
Those are just my thoughts, but most of it seems to be the general consensus amongst the posts.
Maybe I’m guilty of this because I have chosen unisex names for my children, but I didn’t choose these names with any agenda or sexist undertone. I loved the meaning behind the name, the style and yes the strength I feel comes from these names. This does not, however mean that I think feminine names are weak. In fact I feel the opposite. [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] is a strong name in my books, so is [name_f]Gretchen[/name_f], so is [name_f]Audrey[/name_f], so is [name_u]Meredith[/name_u], so is [name_f]Margaret[/name_f], so is [name_f]Penelope[/name_f], and I could go on. It is merely a matter of taste to me. The name [name_f]Ophelia[/name_f] pops up on here a lot, as does [name_f]Aurelia[/name_f]. Now I’m not a fan of these names, they aren’t my style or taste, however I feel they are strong choices. There isn’t a need to label anyone as anti-feminist or sexist for choosing a certain name.
I knew a [name_u]Mackenzie[/name_u] in school that was a boy. I also knew a [name_u]Mackenzie[/name_u] that was a girl. Her name fit her a lot better than his to him. He went by [name_m]Kenny[/name_m] most of his life because in our area [name_u]Mackenzie[/name_u] is a dominantly girl name.
You also have to consider the boys that you name with dominantly girl names. [name_m]How[/name_m] will he feel when he walks into his first day of kindergarten to find he has the same name as two of the girls in his class. Any friends that he makes are sure to point that out, as kids often tell the blatant truth without considering others feelings (not that telling the truth is bad). Then he might grow up hating his name because all of his friends think it’s dumb that he shares the same name as the girls. Bullies might say “Why don’t you go play with the girls, since your name is a girls name”
In our society being girlish is considered weak if you’re a guy. It’s not right but that’s how it is. Boys are supposed to be tough, not girlie. But naming you son [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] to prove a point that girl names can be used for guys isn’t any better than someone naming their daughter [name_m]Timothy[/name_m]. It’s just a matter of preference of the parents. [name_f]Every[/name_f] person is different. Some people think that girl names for guys are good, some think guy names for guys is the best way to go. Who are we to judge them? They had a reason for naming their son/daughter whatever name they gave them. And if we overlook that reason and just judge by the gender stereotypes of the name, doesn’t that make us a bit sexist ourselves?
But genders for names are not a gender stereotype thing. Or using “he” and “she”, “his” and “her”, would also be. Also, some parents wanted to name their kid Bob Sponge or Adolf, and I’m sure they had a reason to do it.
I do not agree with the gender-bending trend, as a first name, for names with strong backgrounds, histories, roots. It feels wrong to change it and disrespectful when the name is from a culture where genders are important. I personnaly only see this trend in America.
I fight against gender stereotypes for women, and for men, even though it is less common. But, I don’t think teaching our kids that people are asexual is right either. We do have a sex and old names from our ancestors/words that stick to our sex. It doesn’t mean we are not equal, it doesn’t mean we are different (except for our sex, the only difference that actually exists).
Names were, at the beginning, a help to identify people, and just like using “he” and “she”, it makes life easier. Deleting genders for names would not change anything about the stereotypes we suffer. It’s just going to make everything confusing and more difficult in my opinion.
So, we can definitely be against this trend for certain names and not be a sexist/fight gender stereotypes.
that’s what irritates me, personally. But to each their own. I’m only responsible for naming my own kids and pets.
Especially when I see a girl named [name_u]Elliott[/name_u] (the parents could have used Elliette instead) or [name_u]James[/name_u]. Giving an established boy name to a girl as a first name is anti-feminist, in my opinion.