New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Is there any correlation between the boy name on girl and gender bias?
I understand that Boy Name on Girl is criticized for “treating femininity as weak and bad.” Why is that? And does this apply to existing unisex names as well? As someone who comes from a culture where unisex names are pretty mainstream, I didn't understand so I asked the question.
Replies
What clevelandkentevans said, but most names in this category are surnames, anyway. I think people who use them generally don't think of them as "boy names" - I perceive surnames as inherently unisex (everyone has a surname, even if surnames are also associated with having an occupation and being able to inherit), so giving one to a girl would only seem like a negative comment on femininity if I think in a patriarchal mindset (as if names associated with occupation and inheritance are masculine by default).
There's also some cases when people use saint names of the opposite gender. Maria is a traditional one for boys as a MN, and I've seen Joseph as a MN for a girl, after the saint. I don't think that type of thing or naming after a relative similarly correlates with gender bias.
There's also some cases when people use saint names of the opposite gender. Maria is a traditional one for boys as a MN, and I've seen Joseph as a MN for a girl, after the saint. I don't think that type of thing or naming after a relative similarly correlates with gender bias.
This message was edited 3/1/2024, 6:43 PM
I really dislike the way that people think about names, but I have my own biases to reflect on. I would not name my son Courtney or Lindsay - not because I dislike the names on boys, but because I fear my son will be teased/bullied. It's really the same reason I would never call a daughter Gay or Gayla. The sound of them isn't bad, but rather, the association people have with those sounds is bad. If I could, I would give all of my children "far out there" names. However, I have to consider that they may have a hard time being taken seriously. If I was "responsible" for them being bullied, I would not know how to respond.
One of my cousins got teased for a having a girly MN. His MN is Adrian (it was in the top 100 for boys! and still is decades later), after a male relative. People are ridiculous.
That's why I wouldn't bother caring. There's a point when it stops being sensible and becomes ridiculous. If a name seems appropriate for a boy to you (before fear kicks in), then it's probably appropriate imv.
That's why I wouldn't bother caring. There's a point when it stops being sensible and becomes ridiculous. If a name seems appropriate for a boy to you (before fear kicks in), then it's probably appropriate imv.
This message was edited 3/1/2024, 8:10 PM
To me the greater indication of sexism is not that people give formerly "male" names to girls, but that when a formerly male name starts being given regularly to girls, people usually STOP giving it to boys. That's more a sign that the culture thinks there is something "bad" about being female or "better" about being male. If we really had an equal view, formerly "female" names would be given to boys as often as formerly "male" names are given to girls, and Americans would still be naming lots of boys Ashley, Madison, Lindsay, Mackenzie, Meredith, Sydney, Tracy, etc.
Spot on!
Thank you.
Nobody really knows, of course, and you can come to your own conclusions.
I would say beware drawing any conclusions about the human world that are based on finding faults with others, faults that you never share.
I think there's a relationship between some aspects of sexism/misogyny, and the fact that masculine-on-girl names are more appealing or accepted than feminine-on-boy names.
But I myself find them more appealing in general, and I don't think femininity is weak and bad, or that boys are better than girls! I've thought about it a lot, and I'm sure that's not my attitude.
I sometimes react to *other people* using cross-gender names, as if I assume that's their attitude. Sometimes it seems like it is!
But I don't really think that belief that one gender is good and the other bad, is the main thing that drives unequal directions of cross-gender name usage.
Anyway we could re-phrase the idea of "gender bias," to reverse it, without changing the outcome on name-usage ...
If you say that GNOB is "bad" because masculinity is felt to be too delicately constructed to bear the power of femininity, and BNOG are "good" because a feminine person has so much more potential than a masculine one to take on all different traits and expressions. It's just a different way of looking at the same thing, and no more or less likely to be an "explanation."
So I think it's more about the *way* that masculinity and femininity are constructed, as an asymmetrical contrast to one another, basically.
Masculinity is "normative" in English. Which means it doesn't really specify male sex, so much as it specifies exclusion of any special 'other' status. And femininity is pretty much defined as specifying association with female sex. So that's a more neutral explanation of why it seems like masculinity can't include even the most positive feminine-specifying traits, without being destroyed ("feminized"), but femininity can be anything that women can be, including having "masculine"-associated traits.
I would say beware drawing any conclusions about the human world that are based on finding faults with others, faults that you never share.
I think there's a relationship between some aspects of sexism/misogyny, and the fact that masculine-on-girl names are more appealing or accepted than feminine-on-boy names.
But I myself find them more appealing in general, and I don't think femininity is weak and bad, or that boys are better than girls! I've thought about it a lot, and I'm sure that's not my attitude.
I sometimes react to *other people* using cross-gender names, as if I assume that's their attitude. Sometimes it seems like it is!
But I don't really think that belief that one gender is good and the other bad, is the main thing that drives unequal directions of cross-gender name usage.
Anyway we could re-phrase the idea of "gender bias," to reverse it, without changing the outcome on name-usage ...
If you say that GNOB is "bad" because masculinity is felt to be too delicately constructed to bear the power of femininity, and BNOG are "good" because a feminine person has so much more potential than a masculine one to take on all different traits and expressions. It's just a different way of looking at the same thing, and no more or less likely to be an "explanation."
So I think it's more about the *way* that masculinity and femininity are constructed, as an asymmetrical contrast to one another, basically.
Masculinity is "normative" in English. Which means it doesn't really specify male sex, so much as it specifies exclusion of any special 'other' status. And femininity is pretty much defined as specifying association with female sex. So that's a more neutral explanation of why it seems like masculinity can't include even the most positive feminine-specifying traits, without being destroyed ("feminized"), but femininity can be anything that women can be, including having "masculine"-associated traits.
This message was edited 2/29/2024, 9:36 PM
Thank you.
I think the stereotype is things like this:
"I had a girl but I wanted a boy, so I'll just name the baby a boy name anyway"
"I don't want my kid to have a girly name because anything girly is uncool, so I'll give her a boy name instead"
etc.
But I don't think that's actually why people use traditionally male names on girls. They just like the sound and they think it would sound good as a unisex name. Occasionally it's for a family reason like "I'm only having one baby and I want to name if after my grandfather regardless of gender", or "I'm naming this baby after a family surname regardless of gender", but most people wouldn't use a name unless they think it sounds good.
If it was just a matter of not wanting a girly name, there are plenty of traditionally female names that aren't "girly" in style that they could use (and disliking "girly" style things doesn't mean you don't respect women either! There is a trend of people hating on anything popular with girls for misogynistic reasons, so people are extra vigilant for signs of that, but just because someone doesn't like something that's considered girly doesn't mean the reason they dislike it is BECAUSE it's girly. You can tell the difference because the former people look down on anyone who likes the girly things and the latter people respect that everyone has their own tastes.)
Established unisex names usually get a pass from comments like you're talking about, but a lot of them used to be male names and turned unisex after being used on girls so often that it couldn't be ignored; some people might still consider those names as "well it's supposed to be a boys name even if it's used as unisex". Which is basically just being in denial about how the usage has shifted, even after everyone else has accepted it as a unisex name. (I'm not exempt from this either -- I still feel that way about Riley, but I've also realized I'm being silly about it.) I'd like it if more names went from female to unisex, but it's a lot more common for names to go from male to unisex. That is probably because of sexism but not on the part of any individual naming their baby that way. It just permeates the culture and changes how people perceive names and how they'd expect a name's gender connotations to affect their baby growing up.
"I had a girl but I wanted a boy, so I'll just name the baby a boy name anyway"
"I don't want my kid to have a girly name because anything girly is uncool, so I'll give her a boy name instead"
etc.
But I don't think that's actually why people use traditionally male names on girls. They just like the sound and they think it would sound good as a unisex name. Occasionally it's for a family reason like "I'm only having one baby and I want to name if after my grandfather regardless of gender", or "I'm naming this baby after a family surname regardless of gender", but most people wouldn't use a name unless they think it sounds good.
If it was just a matter of not wanting a girly name, there are plenty of traditionally female names that aren't "girly" in style that they could use (and disliking "girly" style things doesn't mean you don't respect women either! There is a trend of people hating on anything popular with girls for misogynistic reasons, so people are extra vigilant for signs of that, but just because someone doesn't like something that's considered girly doesn't mean the reason they dislike it is BECAUSE it's girly. You can tell the difference because the former people look down on anyone who likes the girly things and the latter people respect that everyone has their own tastes.)
Established unisex names usually get a pass from comments like you're talking about, but a lot of them used to be male names and turned unisex after being used on girls so often that it couldn't be ignored; some people might still consider those names as "well it's supposed to be a boys name even if it's used as unisex". Which is basically just being in denial about how the usage has shifted, even after everyone else has accepted it as a unisex name. (I'm not exempt from this either -- I still feel that way about Riley, but I've also realized I'm being silly about it.) I'd like it if more names went from female to unisex, but it's a lot more common for names to go from male to unisex. That is probably because of sexism but not on the part of any individual naming their baby that way. It just permeates the culture and changes how people perceive names and how they'd expect a name's gender connotations to affect their baby growing up.
This message was edited 2/29/2024, 9:17 PM
Thank you.
It comes from toxic masculinity, which has been ingrained in American culture.
Thank you.