New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] anti-feminest?
in reply to a message by Siri
Are you a feminest by any chance? I am all for the rights of woman, and no, masculine qualities are not needed to be strong.
Some people just dont like feminine names. Some are not "girly" or have more boyish names, or feminine names that like more boyish nicknames. Just because you like feminine names on girls does not mean everyone does, or even that everyone should. I dont expect people to like my names, or the nicknames I like with those names, or even my style. Its not my problem.
Some people just dont like feminine names. Some are not "girly" or have more boyish names, or feminine names that like more boyish nicknames. Just because you like feminine names on girls does not mean everyone does, or even that everyone should. I dont expect people to like my names, or the nicknames I like with those names, or even my style. Its not my problem.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
FYI
The argument to which Siri is referring is this:
A "boyish" name implies masculine qualities. (This is just a simple definition, and there is really no way to argue against it. Basically, boys are male, so boyish is masculine.)
Giving a girl a "boyish" name or a name that is perceived as masculine (expected to identify a male) at least appears very likely to be an attempt to impart masculine qualities to the female bearer. If it's not a conscious attempt, then it is likely to still be an unconscious one.
Although this is an assumption about the parents' impression of the name as "boyish," the parents are certainly aware that a "boyish" name makes the impression on most other people of masculine qualities. If they claim they are unaware, it is either denial, or they are living outside their own culture.
Since naming girls implies an attempt to impart masculine qualities, the question is begged: Why is that necessary, important, or even appealing?
The most intuitive answer, which - although it may not be correct - it may be assumed to be correct by a reasonable observer, is that the parents believe the female bearer will benefit somehow from the implication that she possesses masculine qualities. They may or may not be right.
If you believe that a female benefits from the perception that she has masculine qualities, then in order to claim that you are egalitarian (feminist), you must also admit that a male benefits from the perception that he has feminine qualities.
If you name girls boy names, or like "boyish" names for girls, (it does NOT matter whether or not you acknowledge the implication of it to everyone else), you presumably would have to have the same practices and preferences for naming boys "girlish" or girl names, in order to be egalitarian.
If you are not egalitarian, you are one of three things:
1. sexist.
2. conformist without regard to perpetuating negative stereotyping of the feminine (female) relative to the masculine (male), and positive stereotyping of masculine relative to the feminine.
The argument to which Siri is referring is this:
A "boyish" name implies masculine qualities. (This is just a simple definition, and there is really no way to argue against it. Basically, boys are male, so boyish is masculine.)
Giving a girl a "boyish" name or a name that is perceived as masculine (expected to identify a male) at least appears very likely to be an attempt to impart masculine qualities to the female bearer. If it's not a conscious attempt, then it is likely to still be an unconscious one.
Although this is an assumption about the parents' impression of the name as "boyish," the parents are certainly aware that a "boyish" name makes the impression on most other people of masculine qualities. If they claim they are unaware, it is either denial, or they are living outside their own culture.
Since naming girls implies an attempt to impart masculine qualities, the question is begged: Why is that necessary, important, or even appealing?
The most intuitive answer, which - although it may not be correct - it may be assumed to be correct by a reasonable observer, is that the parents believe the female bearer will benefit somehow from the implication that she possesses masculine qualities. They may or may not be right.
If you believe that a female benefits from the perception that she has masculine qualities, then in order to claim that you are egalitarian (feminist), you must also admit that a male benefits from the perception that he has feminine qualities.
If you name girls boy names, or like "boyish" names for girls, (it does NOT matter whether or not you acknowledge the implication of it to everyone else), you presumably would have to have the same practices and preferences for naming boys "girlish" or girl names, in order to be egalitarian.
If you are not egalitarian, you are one of three things:
1. sexist.
2. conformist without regard to perpetuating negative stereotyping of the feminine (female) relative to the masculine (male), and positive stereotyping of masculine relative to the feminine.
1