This isn't a response to what you said here. I just want to further expound on what I said.
I would also want my daughter to be gentle and sweet, but also strong-willed, proud, and self-assertive when the occasion calls for it. And in fact, I don't think that the name I did choose for my daughter,
Victoria, is gentle and sweet at all. It seems that when people dislike it, they do so because it's the opposite of gentle and sweet---"icy" and "prickly" is what I hear most.
But even if one does choose a softer and frillier name for a girl, I don't think it's as much of an encumbrance to the woman the girl will grow into being taking seriously than a traditionally feminine name is for the man the boy will grow into. People expect some women to have soft, gentle, and sweet names. They're going to start from the same point whether the name is something very basic and not soft like
Joan, or traditionally masculine such as, I don't know,
Jason, as they are if the name is
Arabella. But since men are expected to have masculine names, I think a traditionally feminine name is going to result in a lot of probably subconscious, and thus more insidious, initial prejudices.
Anyway, there is and always has been a huge disconnect between this board and the real world about giving boys traditionally feminine names. It's fine and dandy to most people here, it seems. That's not the real world. Boys do not want girls' names. It's a burden and a disadvantage. And no, it's not the same burden and disadvantage for a girl to bear a traditionally masculine name, and no, that's not fair, but it's the way it is.
This message was edited 8/3/2020, 9:18 AM