New Post
Search
HelpRe: What are some name trends you personally think are not it?
in reply to a message by OvertiredPigeon
British Isles surnames (and names that sound like they could be), as first names. Not that I don't like a few of them, I just think it's overbaked at this point. Wrenley, Oakley, Kinsley, Riley, Cooper, Kennedy, Harper, Easton, Weston, Walker ... and Walker is right on the nose of the category. Can't get more pedestrian than Walker!
I guess certain "old people" names ... some of them. Maybe I'm just getting old myself, though.
They just have too much sepia tone for me, they don't seem genuinely "cool again." I can kinda imagine what the appeal is, in contrast to the rest of trends - I guess I just feel like the contrast seems too self-conscious.
I'm not a fan of names for boys that are intended specifically to *not* sound masculine. It's subjective which ones they are, of course. But I think it's an actual trend, and I find it sort of repellent.
Not because I don't like a lot of names for boys, that don't give a strong "masculine" impression - I named my son a name I think doesn't happen to give a super "masculine" vibe.
But I feel like the trend is real, for some people to favor boy names based a negative attitude towards masculinity. Taken as an abstract whole Thing, it's the same as choosing only the *most* butch sounding names for boys, or choosing "masculine" sounding names for girls, in order to avoid femininity. Too much about parents' fears. People moaned in the 00s-10s about the "sexism" of giving "masculine" names to girls and how it showed that people devalued feminine people, but if they are right about that, it's odd that nobody seems to acknowledge that giving what they call "soft" (not-"masculine") names to boys ought to also be said to demonstrate distaste towards masculine people.
- mirfak
I guess certain "old people" names ... some of them. Maybe I'm just getting old myself, though.
They just have too much sepia tone for me, they don't seem genuinely "cool again." I can kinda imagine what the appeal is, in contrast to the rest of trends - I guess I just feel like the contrast seems too self-conscious.
I'm not a fan of names for boys that are intended specifically to *not* sound masculine. It's subjective which ones they are, of course. But I think it's an actual trend, and I find it sort of repellent.
Not because I don't like a lot of names for boys, that don't give a strong "masculine" impression - I named my son a name I think doesn't happen to give a super "masculine" vibe.
But I feel like the trend is real, for some people to favor boy names based a negative attitude towards masculinity. Taken as an abstract whole Thing, it's the same as choosing only the *most* butch sounding names for boys, or choosing "masculine" sounding names for girls, in order to avoid femininity. Too much about parents' fears. People moaned in the 00s-10s about the "sexism" of giving "masculine" names to girls and how it showed that people devalued feminine people, but if they are right about that, it's odd that nobody seems to acknowledge that giving what they call "soft" (not-"masculine") names to boys ought to also be said to demonstrate distaste towards masculine people.
- mirfak
This message was edited 11/13/2024, 9:29 PM
