New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Madison
in reply to a message by queenv
Um, I'm a Madyson who is 25.... making my mother 55...... soooo, it obviously doesn't only appeal to this "younger generation"
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
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.
1
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
1
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.
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.
1
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
1
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.
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.
1
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.
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.
1