New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: My column on Chelsea
in reply to a message by clevelandkentevans
"Chelsea remained rare and predominantly male until 1969. The 1950 census found 474 men and 328 women named Chelsea, Chelsey or Chelsie. "
That looks like a unisex name, not "predominantly male". Men can be given unisex names, we don't need to exaggerate to make it binary.
That looks like a unisex name, not "predominantly male". Men can be given unisex names, we don't need to exaggerate to make it binary.
3
Replies
I guess we will have to disagree on the meaning of the word "predominantly." The figures in the 1950 census were 59.1% male and 40.9% female. To my mind it's perfectly correct to call such a spread "predominantly male."
1
In a room of 10 people with this breakdown, 6 would be men and 4 would be women. Would you say that was a group of predominantly men? I don't mean to argue word definitions, just suggesting you might have a bias towards describing unisex names as men's names, or over emphazing the importance that there were more men than women. I love your articles, they are all the interesting stories of why names were given! But I've noticed this a couple times, with your Stacy article as well.
1
Yes, I would describe a group of 6 men and 4 women as being predominantly male. A 60%-40% election result in the USA would generally be called a "landslide," and to me "predominantly" is a lot less strong a word than that.
2
The strength of a word like landslide matters in context, where most elections are almost 50-50 and a 60-40 result is a notable change. In a world where at least 90% of Americans are given a name that's 99% single gender (based on 1960s data), a 60-40 result is notable. Names are predominantly given to a single gender. Chelsea was a unisex landslide.
2