@thirteenth - Sorry, I thought the conversation was about how some of the names in your poll were too masculine were girls.
Basically-- and this is going to sound awful but please hear me out-- femininity is seen as inferior to masculinity. I’m not saying that femininity is inferior, but that is how it has historically been. [name_m]Even[/name_m] [name_m]Aristotle[/name_m] called women ‘incomplete men’ (I’m paraphrasing though). So it is my understanding that Feminine names can suit girls because traditionally they were made for girls, but masculine names can suit girls as well because women have fought to be treated as equal to men through feminist movements and so have earned the right to be given “male” names. However, we have never fully gotten rid of the inferior connotations from feminine names. So, it is rare that a boy would be given a feminine name because that would be making them seen as less-than those who have masculine names. I don’t agree with this, but that is the perceived reality. It’s like why boys are called “sissies” when they cry and why girls are praised for doing things like wrestling or football because it shows off that they can subvert gender norms and be tough like boys. Feminine traits are typically not as respected as masculine traits.
So, a name like [name_f]Rose[/name_f], which evokes the delicateness of the flower, is not typically used on a son because delicateness is an “inferior” feminine trait. But a girl can be called [name_m]Maxwell[/name_m] or [name_u]Emerson[/name_u] because these names evoke “superior” masculine traits like intelligence and strength. That’s why it might feel icky to give boys feminine names.
And what I’m saying is I disagree with this. Men should be allowed to be named [name_f]Rose[/name_f] or [name_f]Cecily[/name_f], just as women are allowed to be named [name_u]Emerson[/name_u] or [name_m]Maxwell[/name_m]. Names shouldn’t be gendered. Though they are associated with genders, I don’t believe they should be.
Not that these associations can be subverted overnight, but if more people use traditionally feminine names for their sons, I don’t see why a boy cannot have a name like [name_f]Rose[/name_f] (I mean, flowers themselves have no gender).
I’m just listing these off the top of my head. Some of these combos might suck but my argument is that they could exist if we really want them to, whether for sons or daughters:
[name_f]Amy[/name_f] [name_m]Todd[/name_m]
[name_u]Vivian[/name_u] [name_m]Daniel[/name_m]
[name_m]Oliver[/name_m] [name_f]Faith[/name_f]
[name_f]Hannah[/name_f] [name_m]Scott[/name_m]
[name_u]Evelyn[/name_u] [name_m]Willis[/name_m]
[name_u]Evan[/name_u] [name_f]Isabel[/name_f] (purposefully not [name_f]Isabelle[/name_f] because, unlike English, [name_m]French[/name_m] is a gendered language and belle is the feminine form of beautiful, but -bel is a nice in-between for belle and beau in my opinion)
[name_u]Brooklyn[/name_u] [name_u]Gene[/name_u]
[name_m]Maverick[/name_m] [name_f]Rachel[/name_f]
[name_u]Georgie[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f]
[name_f]Cecily[/name_f] [name_m]Nathan[/name_m].
[name_u]Leslie[/name_u] [name_m]Drake[/name_m]
[name_u]Ashley[/name_u] [name_u]Drew[/name_u]
Sorry if I’m coming across as a bit intense. The English major part of me wanted to work this out. I’d love to hear more thoughts on the topic. [name_m]Feel[/name_m] free to disagree with me! It’s definitely a topic I want to understand better.
Have a nice day 