New Post
Search
HelpRe: Trask?
in reply to a message by Ciarda85
I was going to say it, then decided not to.. then Catherine and Lissa posted..
There does seem to be some kind of trend towards making everybody more butch with names these days. Do some folks feel like female names are too wimpy and ordinary for girls, and male names are too wimpy and ordinary for boys? Or is there some other idea about it, that I don't get?
Picture in 25 years, Riley marries Trask, or Madison marries Mason .. when they get into a fight, it truly is a feud.. they're not just people, they're whole families!
Being "on a first-name basis" with these people seems totally meaningless. Maybe they're supposed to seem .. invulnerable, inaccessible, impersonal; or larger than life, more valuable, more important. Having a surname name (or a male or surname name on a girl) is sort of like wearing combat boots everywhere .. gives an impression of toughness, but it's just window-dressing. S/He's not actually carrying a machine gun.
And it's absurd because by the time the kid is 10, Trask is a first name to everyone who knows him.
Lots of names that are now common first names started out as surname names, so this has been happening for a long time. It's only the motivation that may have changed.
It's too bad the folks who are interested in this sort of naming (the ones I've heard from, anyway) refuse to offer any reflection on their motivations. It'd be very interesting to hear what they feel the appeal of names is, that seem butch and impersonal to me. But they always seem to say, "I just like it. It's just my style. It just sounds cute to me blah blah blah"
Anybody here into male/surnames on girls and/or new usage of surnames like Trask on boys, who can explain why? So I can stop making up theories about your insecurities?
I guess thinking that this style "sounds stronger," or that gender-conventional first names "sound" too ordinary or too weak in modern culture, is a perfectly valid point of view... but nobody is willing to stand up for it. DAH. So what is the deal?
- chazda
There does seem to be some kind of trend towards making everybody more butch with names these days. Do some folks feel like female names are too wimpy and ordinary for girls, and male names are too wimpy and ordinary for boys? Or is there some other idea about it, that I don't get?
Picture in 25 years, Riley marries Trask, or Madison marries Mason .. when they get into a fight, it truly is a feud.. they're not just people, they're whole families!
Being "on a first-name basis" with these people seems totally meaningless. Maybe they're supposed to seem .. invulnerable, inaccessible, impersonal; or larger than life, more valuable, more important. Having a surname name (or a male or surname name on a girl) is sort of like wearing combat boots everywhere .. gives an impression of toughness, but it's just window-dressing. S/He's not actually carrying a machine gun.
And it's absurd because by the time the kid is 10, Trask is a first name to everyone who knows him.
Lots of names that are now common first names started out as surname names, so this has been happening for a long time. It's only the motivation that may have changed.
It's too bad the folks who are interested in this sort of naming (the ones I've heard from, anyway) refuse to offer any reflection on their motivations. It'd be very interesting to hear what they feel the appeal of names is, that seem butch and impersonal to me. But they always seem to say, "I just like it. It's just my style. It just sounds cute to me blah blah blah"
Anybody here into male/surnames on girls and/or new usage of surnames like Trask on boys, who can explain why? So I can stop making up theories about your insecurities?
I guess thinking that this style "sounds stronger," or that gender-conventional first names "sound" too ordinary or too weak in modern culture, is a perfectly valid point of view... but nobody is willing to stand up for it. DAH. So what is the deal?
- chazda
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1