In the past decade, there’s been a huge surge of girls with traditionally masculine names (think [name_u]Avery[/name_u] and [name_u]Taylor[/name_u]). In the past year or two, many parents have even started naming baby girls names like [name_u]James[/name_u] and [name_m]John[/name_m], names with very long histories of being male. But I haven’t noticed a similar trend in boys’ names. Why is it that it’s considered normal for a girl to be named [name_u]Charlie[/name_u], but not for a boy to be named [name_f]Charlotte[/name_f]?
Does anyone have a theory as to why masculine girls’ names are so common while feminine boys’ names are so rare?
A hypothesis of mine is that many boy to girl names are often surnames which have been born by many many women. So it doesn’t sound strange to the ear to hear a girl named [name_u]Taylor[/name_u], whose mother was [name_f]Lydia[/name_f] [name_u]Taylor[/name_u]. (Not that that is the only reason). Or even to nickname a [name_f]Jane[/name_f] [name_u]Taylor[/name_u] and call her “[name_u]Taylor[/name_u]”. It was cool a long time ago in the mid-20th century to refer to peers by their last names. So that’s another way it became normalized and started to “sound” correct.
But names like [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] and [name_f]Charlotte[/name_f] have only ever been found on women, no matter what place it is in. Feminine names are never surnames. So the disconnect is a lot wider and it is a lot harder for people to bridge the gap from girls to boys. No man was ever named [name_u]James[/name_u] [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f], although plenty of girls were named [name_f]Elizabeth[/name_f] [name_u]Avery[/name_u].
It’s a form of sexism. Parents don’t want to bestow their sons with feminine names that are deemed frilly, weak, or girly. On the other hand, parents want their girls to have what they deem strong, commanding, or masculine names for various reasons. I believe it is mostly subconscious.
FWIW I love unisex names. You’ll see some names repeat on either side of my signature.
This is certainly an interesting thought. I’d love to see any sources you have.
I don’t think it’s necessarily correct though. While it’s true a lot of traditionally masculine names can be last names too ([name_m]Alexander[/name_m], [name_u]James[/name_u], etc.), and patronymic surnames are common in a lot of cultures, there are quite a few traditionally feminine names that can double as surnames too. [name_f]Lilly[/name_f], [name_f]Joy[/name_f], [name_f]Rose[/name_f], etc. If what you’re saying is true, then why aren’t there any guys named [name_u]James[/name_u] [name_f]Rose[/name_f] that go by [name_f]Rose[/name_f]?
I’m more inclined to agree that it’s a sexism issue, but like a PP said, this same question has been hashed on on this website a thousand times over. You can just search the forums and find threads on this topic all day long.
I don’t have any sources, again, it’s just what I’ve come up with at least as far as explaining the surname-name trend.
And to answer your other question, it’s probably because flowers are seen as inherently feminine and aren’t common surnames to begin with.
Personally I prefer boy names and girl names to be respected individually and bestowed on the appropriate genders, as intended. So I haven’t really dipped into the unisex trend.
It’s not just the past decade; this has been happening for at least 100 years! You’ve probably never met a boy named [name_f]Shirley[/name_f], but they existed in the early 1800s! I did not notice until now that so many of these boy-to-girl names are actually surnames, so that could have a major effect like roseofjune stated. But I still think that the main reason comes down to traditional gender roles. It’s more acceptable in modern society for women to exhibit masculinity than for men to exhibit femininity. So, in terms of names, it’s more acceptable to think about bending gender norms by calling a girl [name_u]Shawn[/name_u] than by calling a boy [name_f]Irene[/name_f].