View Message

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

[Opinions] Re: Madison
in reply to a message by Lily
I don't know about the board, but it's certainly not a favorite of mine. I remember when I first heard of it as a name for a girl. It was back in the early 90's. I had a cat named Madison. I named him Madison because I was trying to think of a name that would reflect where I'm from, which is the New York Metropolitan Area, and I thought of Madison because of Madison Avenue and Madison Square Garden. I thought it was an okay name for a male cat. Someone who learned of my cat's name told me that she knew of a little girl in her son's daycare who was named Madison. I was dumbfounded. I just looked at her in an extremely puzzled way and said, "Really?" I just could not wrap my mind around any reason why anyone would name a baby girl Madison.Little did I know how popular it would grow to be. I just don't really know how to express my total disgust and disdain for this name. There's nothing the least bit feminine or the least bit appealing about it, especially for a girl. The fact that it's so popular is a complete mystery to me and one thing that really makes me question the taste and judgment of the younger generation. That's how much I hate this name. I just can't wrap my mind around it.I also dislike Abigail, though not nearly to the extent that I hate Madison, and I've seen people here say that Abigail is popular mainly because people want to use the nickname Abby. Which makes no sense to me because I also hate Abby. I feel the same way about Maddy or Maddie as a nickname for Madison. It's no better than the full name.As bad as Madison is, Mattison is worse. Addison is a little worse. Addie is bad.I've never known a Madison and never known anyone who named their daughter Madison. I think that Maddison is just a tad better than Madison--the extra D makes it look just the tiniest bit more feminine.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

Um, I'm a Madyson who is 25.... making my mother 55...... soooo, it obviously doesn't only appeal to this "younger generation"
vote up1
Hmmm...well, if you're twenty-five, then you must have been born in either 1986 or 1987. I looked it up and Madison was number 366 in 1986 and 326 in 1987. So your mom used the name when it was just starting to get popular. It entered the top ten in 1993, when I was thirty-three. I personally was through having children at that age, but, of course, a lot of people are just having their first child at that age or even somewhat later, so I guess it's true that it did and does have some appeal for people my age. I was thinking of the time when I was in my teens and early to mid-twenties, when Madison was nowhere to be seen, which prompted me to make my "younger generation" comment.
vote up1
I just find the idea of questioning the taste and judgement of any generation, based on popular name choices, to be a weird and unfair thing. I mean, I could easily say that I question the taste of women in the 1930s who were naming their little girls Shirley, Barbara and Carol. I may REALLY dislike those names but I can't blame those who lived at the time, for conforming to a trend that surrounded them. I'm actually in total agreement with you in that I dislike MOST of the names that I hear being given to babies now-a-days but they're only products of our existence at this time. Naming trends are as real as clothing trends and often just as "fad-ish" - I can't blame a guy for rockin' a mullet in the 70s anymore than I can blame a woman for naming her daughter Ashley (or Madison or whatever) in the 90s - Not that I think suck choices should be approached with the same considerations, but that's a different story altogether
vote up1
It's just the way people are, I think...they don't look back on the fashions and mores of past generations and think "Were they crazy?" but they often do that at changes that take place in their lifetimes. For instance, people who were in their forties and fifties back in 1960's didn't look back on long skirts, bustles, and crinolines as being crazy but they did shake their heads in dismay at the love beads, guys with long hair and beards, miniskirts, headbands, tie-died shirts, etc. that young people then were sporting.It's not just Madison with me, either. I also shake my head at Addison, MacKenzie, Bailey, Sheridan, and pretty much any surname on a girl. It's a fashion that didn't exist when I was young (well, really young) and I tend to think that I just don't understand it because I was well past adulthood when it started.Anyway, I really didn't mean for my "taste and judgment of the younger generation" comment to be taken that seriously. I actually do like some names that are popular now.
vote up1
I think I was feeling a bit of ageism combined with the fact that MY name is Madyson. I mean, I don't even really like the name - I'd advise against it currently. But I'm a bit chaffed by the idea that another generation would "look down" on the current one, even if I don't feel like I necessarily identify with its generalizations. No hard feelings though. It's hard to be objective about things/times that still seem relevant.

This message was edited 4/19/2012, 7:28 PM

vote up1
I think it's a fashion that always existed. What about Kelly? Shirley? Tracey? Lindsay?Kelly was already pretty common in the 50s and 60s. Same with Tracey. Shirley was super common in the 30s, I think. It's not a very recent trend. In 1849 Charlotte Bronte named a girl in one of her novels Shirley. I think the father of the character Shirley had intended to give the name to a son and used it anyway when he had a daughter. I actually consider that a good thing. I mean women have surnames too, why can only boys have them as first names? What if some women would really like to give their maiden names to their daughters? I think this is how it all started anyway. I mean why are surnames considered masculine? Women have surnames too.
vote up1
Hmmmm....well, I think that surnames being used on boys and then becoming unisex or switching to all girls has always happened to some extent, as in the examples you use. Come to think of it, Courtney for girls was popular when I was a teenager. But it seems to have really picked up lately and the names are skipping boys and going right to girls.Also, in the past, it seems to me that these names were just more feminine sounding than they are now. Kelly, Shirley, Tracey, Ashley, Courtney, all sound feminine to me. Madison, Addison, Bailey, MacKenzie, don't. Lindsay doesn't, either...I've never liked it. So I'm still thinking there's a new trend here. To me, most surnames sound inherently masculine...as in, I can see naming a boy Harrison, Robinson, Blake, Walker, Baker, but I just can't see them on girls, but that's a matter of opinion.
vote up1
Haha you were a trendsetter, though :) You used Madison before it became popular! Hmmm I guess the nickname Maddy could be seen as something that's feminine about it. Oh yeah, I hate Abigail (no offense to anyone). I definitely think that it's only common because people want an Abby. I've also never met an Abigail who went by her full name.The Mattison I know was given a family surname. She has to explain how it is spelled all of the time but she likes it. I think Addison is ok. Same with Addie. I used to think that Maddison looked better but for some reason that has changed.
vote up1