New Post
Search
HelpRe: Why does it need to be feminine?
in reply to a message by Cayden
Why are girls named crap like George but you never see boys named Linda and Jennifer??? It's like it's only cool for names to be gender-nonconforming if they're shrugging off femininity and preferring masculinity. It's sexist!
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Exactly
1
So name more boys Linda and Jennifer instead of not naming girls George.
It's like girls have name cooties or something and as soon as girls touch a name, it's off-limits to boys. Girls can be named George or whatever and that doesn't stop anyone from naming boys George (or Ashley or Linda or Jennifer or whatever). Especially if you're a celebrity, you can be a trendsetter.
It's like girls have name cooties or something and as soon as girls touch a name, it's off-limits to boys. Girls can be named George or whatever and that doesn't stop anyone from naming boys George (or Ashley or Linda or Jennifer or whatever). Especially if you're a celebrity, you can be a trendsetter.
1
Yeah except that's not actually how it works in real life. Ashley used to be a completely masculine name. Once it transferred to girls hardly anyone uses it on boys anymore, because of the fact that femininity is devalued, especially femininity in men.
1
Sure, in the U.S.
In the UK, the use of Ashley on girls never affected its use on boys. There's no hard and fast rule about this.
I wish every post on gender and naming didn't end in a sort of pile-on.
In the UK, the use of Ashley on girls never affected its use on boys. There's no hard and fast rule about this.
I wish every post on gender and naming didn't end in a sort of pile-on.
1
Maybe, people who name girls with boy names but not vice-versa really are motivated by sexism.
But I think there could be another explanation for why names only seem to cross gender in one direction. Tell me what you think about this...
If I invert the gender values, like if it's a sexist matriarchy - the logic of name gender directionality *could* stay the same.
I can imagine it going something like: 'Girls are too cool to seem damaged by masculine attributes; boys are not good enough to bear feminine attributes. A "girl" is always enough of whatever she is, by definition. Bearing a conventionally masculine name doesn't limit a girl, or make her less of a girl. Girlness can encompass all the possibilities of boyness, including bearing a masculine name, being a George - and still be genuinely feminine. But a "boy" can never be enough, he doesn't have what it takes to be a Linda. It would only point up how boyness is limited. Masculinity is too weak, it self-destructs and becomes pathetic if it pretends at any girlness, like when a boy bears a conventionally feminine name.'
I don't think that is radically different from the apparent patriarchal-sexist logic, of girls seeming cool and strong with boynames, and boys seeming ridiculous and weak with girlnames ... it's just framed with different evaluation of boys and girls.
So I wonder if it's just the nature of gender as a principle of existence, and has less to do with human gender or sex or hierarchy. The principle of gender is necessary, and exists even without any relationship to humans and their differences and roles. We associate feminine and masculine, with girls and boys, and gendered things like names - but at least some of that is arbitrary and unnecessary.
Think of the nature of light and dark: you can turn on a light in the dark. You can make it dark by shutting out light. But you can't turn on a darkness in the light, or make it light by shutting out darkness.
The masculine and feminine principles have that kind of difference. I think people know this intuitively, even though it doesn't map absolutely onto any difference between human genders. I think this could be part of why names seem to only go one way across genders easily, and even people who are critically conscious of gender role stereotyping still feel less comfy with boy names on girls, than vice-versa.
Any thoughts on this?
But I think there could be another explanation for why names only seem to cross gender in one direction. Tell me what you think about this...
If I invert the gender values, like if it's a sexist matriarchy - the logic of name gender directionality *could* stay the same.
I can imagine it going something like: 'Girls are too cool to seem damaged by masculine attributes; boys are not good enough to bear feminine attributes. A "girl" is always enough of whatever she is, by definition. Bearing a conventionally masculine name doesn't limit a girl, or make her less of a girl. Girlness can encompass all the possibilities of boyness, including bearing a masculine name, being a George - and still be genuinely feminine. But a "boy" can never be enough, he doesn't have what it takes to be a Linda. It would only point up how boyness is limited. Masculinity is too weak, it self-destructs and becomes pathetic if it pretends at any girlness, like when a boy bears a conventionally feminine name.'
I don't think that is radically different from the apparent patriarchal-sexist logic, of girls seeming cool and strong with boynames, and boys seeming ridiculous and weak with girlnames ... it's just framed with different evaluation of boys and girls.
So I wonder if it's just the nature of gender as a principle of existence, and has less to do with human gender or sex or hierarchy. The principle of gender is necessary, and exists even without any relationship to humans and their differences and roles. We associate feminine and masculine, with girls and boys, and gendered things like names - but at least some of that is arbitrary and unnecessary.
Think of the nature of light and dark: you can turn on a light in the dark. You can make it dark by shutting out light. But you can't turn on a darkness in the light, or make it light by shutting out darkness.
The masculine and feminine principles have that kind of difference. I think people know this intuitively, even though it doesn't map absolutely onto any difference between human genders. I think this could be part of why names seem to only go one way across genders easily, and even people who are critically conscious of gender role stereotyping still feel less comfy with boy names on girls, than vice-versa.
Any thoughts on this?
1
Eh? Well, speaking in purely hypothetical terms, couldn't they still be equal. Couldn't we honor both sides in both genders? I'm super into a few girl names on boys. Like Sophia. What a wonderful feminine attribute Sophia represents. How exciting it would be to honor that attribute in naming a male child!
I think we're intuitively less comfortable with the swapping because we're intuitively less comfortable with femininity. Honor of any kind of feminine principle has not been functional in Western society for ages.
Sure, it does point to a weakness of masculinity - but only in the indirect way, that all explicit huffing and puffing of masculine values does.
I think we're intuitively less comfortable with the swapping because we're intuitively less comfortable with femininity. Honor of any kind of feminine principle has not been functional in Western society for ages.
Sure, it does point to a weakness of masculinity - but only in the indirect way, that all explicit huffing and puffing of masculine values does.
1
Hm, obviously I didn't communicate what I was trying to say. I was talking about intuitions based not on gender (man/woman) as a human expression but Gender as an abstract principle, a fundamental asymmetry, a duality that isn't really two separate things but arises from conceptualization ... yin and yang? The Genders (not the genders man and woman) that are asymmetrically interdependent. Symmetry and equality are two different things... Geez, nevermind. I don't think I'm going to be able to successfully communicate what I'm trying to explain here.
I'm not intuitively less comfortable with femininity, and I don't really think masculinity is "weak." Discomfort with femininity corresponds to insecurity in masculinity, and weak masculinity is only weak because femininity is degraded.
I think the feminine principles have been honored and functional in Western society. It's *women* who have been dishonored. Feminine things that are *about women* are dishonored. Feminine principles, though, have been disassociated with women, and made out to be abstractions for men to pursue, control, and possess. While masculine principles have remained associated with men.
Anyway I think it's interesting how people feel about the naming thing ... I'm curious about exactly what people think differently from me, if they did see what I was trying to say, but still think boys-with-girl-names would be really positive. If anyone wants to talk about it, feel free to PM me.
I'm not intuitively less comfortable with femininity, and I don't really think masculinity is "weak." Discomfort with femininity corresponds to insecurity in masculinity, and weak masculinity is only weak because femininity is degraded.
I think the feminine principles have been honored and functional in Western society. It's *women* who have been dishonored. Feminine things that are *about women* are dishonored. Feminine principles, though, have been disassociated with women, and made out to be abstractions for men to pursue, control, and possess. While masculine principles have remained associated with men.
Anyway I think it's interesting how people feel about the naming thing ... I'm curious about exactly what people think differently from me, if they did see what I was trying to say, but still think boys-with-girl-names would be really positive. If anyone wants to talk about it, feel free to PM me.
This message was edited 3/8/2018, 1:15 PM
1
I think feminine principles haven't been honored, and that women aren't really separate from them. The thesis-driven essay is my go-to example - it was driven down everyone's throats, and people aren't even aware it's biased. What about the reflective or open-ended or mysterious essay? Syntax that opens up, rather than trying to prove? But it's all over the place. Brutalization of natural places rather than respect and incorporation of them into living places. Competitive and achievement based diction being inherent in almost every structure. Job hierarchies being thought of as hierarchies, where bosses are "on top" rather than equal-level facilitators of other people's jobs.
I agree that when one is degraded the other is weakened. But consciously, on the level of conscious choices, our society has favored the cosmetic strength of masculinity in general and men specifically, over femininity in general and women specifically, in almost every area there has been a choice.
That's changing now, I think, but it is the cultural world I inherited.
I agree that when one is degraded the other is weakened. But consciously, on the level of conscious choices, our society has favored the cosmetic strength of masculinity in general and men specifically, over femininity in general and women specifically, in almost every area there has been a choice.
That's changing now, I think, but it is the cultural world I inherited.
1
I see the stuff on your laundry list as the expression of cultural beliefs about reality and what we are. I think misogyny is a sibling of that stuff, not a source of it. Anyway, I take your point, that in the sense you mean, feminine concepts are devalued and not honored. And it's not just out of misogyny, nor for the sake of gender hierarchy. Yep.
I guess my question to you is - what effect would you hope it would have, to name boys with feminine names? Would those become formerly-feminine names? How, exactly, do you suppose it would work to improve anything - if as many boys were named with traditional girl-names, as there are girls named with traditional boy-names? Or do you just feel that it would be positive, exciting, and don't think it's worth it to theorize about problem-solving, because like, things just flow? (no snark)
Yeah of course.
My idea was that it's possible, that our explanations of "society's conscious choices," of why people decide as they do about baby names, don't reflect conscious awareness of all of the influences on individual choices. I'm trying to figure how it can be, that people who really feel the asymmetry derives from sexism, who are eager to defy sexist norms, still aren't really willing to walk the talk. I don't think they're necessarily just programmed or hypocritical. It's not that I think the asymmetry of cross-gender naming is never sexist, and it's not that I don't appreciate why people interpret it as sexist.
I guess my question to you is - what effect would you hope it would have, to name boys with feminine names? Would those become formerly-feminine names? How, exactly, do you suppose it would work to improve anything - if as many boys were named with traditional girl-names, as there are girls named with traditional boy-names? Or do you just feel that it would be positive, exciting, and don't think it's worth it to theorize about problem-solving, because like, things just flow? (no snark)
Yeah of course.
My idea was that it's possible, that our explanations of "society's conscious choices," of why people decide as they do about baby names, don't reflect conscious awareness of all of the influences on individual choices. I'm trying to figure how it can be, that people who really feel the asymmetry derives from sexism, who are eager to defy sexist norms, still aren't really willing to walk the talk. I don't think they're necessarily just programmed or hypocritical. It's not that I think the asymmetry of cross-gender naming is never sexist, and it's not that I don't appreciate why people interpret it as sexist.
This message was edited 3/9/2018, 1:58 PM
1
100% agree
1
Agreed
1
Yeah, I'm with you on this I think. It's not advancing the idea of nonconformity (which I'm all for) if it's only going one way, it's just more of the same masculine-to-feminine shift in name usage that we've been seeing for decades that has all sorts of weird sexist implications. Call me when a celeb names their son Rose or something and doesn't get crap for it, y'know?
This message was edited 3/6/2018, 10:41 PM
1