New Post
Search
HelpRe: I agree (m)
in reply to a message by Kelly R.
Is that just the sound you prefer, or do you object to it on a girl in principle? I only ask because, as far as I know, it was never a name that went from boys to girls.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Clarification ... and long story
I'm not sure how clear that was, but for the sake of expanding:
Do you prefer it on a boy
(a) because you consider it unisex and you prefer unisex names on boys as a rule
or
(b) because you consider it actually stolen, i.e. a traditional boys' name that was then afterwards adopted by girls
?
If the answer is (b) ...
I'm not bothered by cross-gender naming in either direction, as long as the sound works (which is just a matter of personal opinion).
If people are in favour of keeping strict gender lines, that is fine by me, but even that is not so clear-cut: it depends on how they see those gender lines. You have male and female names such as Matthew and Emily, and there's no problem there. But how do you judge names that are adopted from other places, i.e. not actually first names at all? Placenames? Surnames? Vocabulary names? Are they gender-neutral, full stop? Or are they gender-neutral *until they are adopted by one gender*, then they must stay there? Take the surnames Howard and Scarlett, for example. There is little doubt, in most people's minds, that these are both strictly established as one gender or the other. Then you have the question of Briar. Plant names were adopted for girls, and a 19th-century invention.
So, to cut a long story short, I don't mind if others' ideas of gender lines are different to mine. But it's hypocrisy that I always feel the need to complain about :-/
You might see this a way of evening up the boys' side, but if you do, then consider this: Think back to the vote for women in 1928. Would you have favoured stopping men's vote while the women's side was evened up? I thought not. That is hypocrisy. And I don't see how hypocrisy could ever play a part in what you claim to want: "true gender equality". Because double standards cannot equal equality. It just doesn't work. It's the very same with names. How ignorant to name your daughter Mackenzie, when it means "son of". Oh but Emmet, derived from Emma, is a BOYS NAME ONLY!!!!!!!! I hear complaining about the one-way system of girls "stealing" boys' names. And then the very same people use the "if boy, it's boy; if it's genderless, it's boy", obviously partial reasoning that is parallel to what they're complaining of in the first place :-S
I'm not sure how clear that was, but for the sake of expanding:
Do you prefer it on a boy
(a) because you consider it unisex and you prefer unisex names on boys as a rule
or
(b) because you consider it actually stolen, i.e. a traditional boys' name that was then afterwards adopted by girls
?
If the answer is (b) ...
I'm not bothered by cross-gender naming in either direction, as long as the sound works (which is just a matter of personal opinion).
If people are in favour of keeping strict gender lines, that is fine by me, but even that is not so clear-cut: it depends on how they see those gender lines. You have male and female names such as Matthew and Emily, and there's no problem there. But how do you judge names that are adopted from other places, i.e. not actually first names at all? Placenames? Surnames? Vocabulary names? Are they gender-neutral, full stop? Or are they gender-neutral *until they are adopted by one gender*, then they must stay there? Take the surnames Howard and Scarlett, for example. There is little doubt, in most people's minds, that these are both strictly established as one gender or the other. Then you have the question of Briar. Plant names were adopted for girls, and a 19th-century invention.
So, to cut a long story short, I don't mind if others' ideas of gender lines are different to mine. But it's hypocrisy that I always feel the need to complain about :-/
You might see this a way of evening up the boys' side, but if you do, then consider this: Think back to the vote for women in 1928. Would you have favoured stopping men's vote while the women's side was evened up? I thought not. That is hypocrisy. And I don't see how hypocrisy could ever play a part in what you claim to want: "true gender equality". Because double standards cannot equal equality. It just doesn't work. It's the very same with names. How ignorant to name your daughter Mackenzie, when it means "son of". Oh but Emmet, derived from Emma, is a BOYS NAME ONLY!!!!!!!! I hear complaining about the one-way system of girls "stealing" boys' names. And then the very same people use the "if boy, it's boy; if it's genderless, it's boy", obviously partial reasoning that is parallel to what they're complaining of in the first place :-S
1
I do not want to go any further about this discussion on this thread. However, I would be happy to start another thread on my opinions.
1
Would you like to start one then? Will I? It seems pointless to belong to a board in order to raise awareness of your beliefs, and then to avoid addressing any of the points other people bring up about them. I'll start a new thread then, just as "ATTN: Kelly R." with a link to what I just posted. I hope you do respond then, but at the end of the day it's up to you.
~Elinor
~Elinor
1
This is a name that I think sounds better on boys, so that's what my opinion is based on.
1
Ouch. In that case, I've just posted a loooooooong food-for-thought nit-pick assuming the other thing ... But never mind. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it regardless, if you want to give them.
1