New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Why does it need to be feminine?
in reply to a message by Mar
Why do girls' names have to sound feminine? I'm all for a world where women and men can just *be*, without needing to meet some standard of femininity or masculinity. I'm a gender rebel, though.
*previously posted as summitseeker*
--hike more / worry less--
*previously posted as summitseeker*
--hike more / worry less--
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Because it's never the other way around. No one gives their boys traditionally feminine names. This just seems to be another way in which femininity is devalued while masculinity is seen as the goal.
1
Oddly enough, that's exactly why!
As long as it's unacceptable socially for boys to get names that are feminine, I'm a little iffy for it being okay the other way around. It just doesn't feel right. It's like it's okay for a girl to aspire being boyish, because that's better, but not okay for a boy to aspire being girlish, because that's worse.
And this is as a proud mom of a girl who also has building toys and cars etc. along with her dolls. If she ever has a brother, he'd have dolls and pink toys along with his trucks and toys with other colours. But he'd have a male name, just as she has a female name (Elva Roxanna Philippa), because it's okay for a boy to be a boy and girl to be a girl.
As long as it's unacceptable socially for boys to get names that are feminine, I'm a little iffy for it being okay the other way around. It just doesn't feel right. It's like it's okay for a girl to aspire being boyish, because that's better, but not okay for a boy to aspire being girlish, because that's worse.
And this is as a proud mom of a girl who also has building toys and cars etc. along with her dolls. If she ever has a brother, he'd have dolls and pink toys along with his trucks and toys with other colours. But he'd have a male name, just as she has a female name (Elva Roxanna Philippa), because it's okay for a boy to be a boy and girl to be a girl.
1
well said
0
0
1
Totally agree with your premises but kind of came to the opposite conclusion.
It's like clothes: girls wearing pants is more popular than boys wearing dresses, but that doesn't mean girls shouldn't wear pants; it means boys should wear dresses more often so that it doesn't look "weird" to people. It's also like popular bands, movies, etc. Just because it's popular doesn't mean you can't like it for itself. Masculinity is culturally valued more than femininity, but if you like masculine things for themselves (not just because they're popular), you shouldn't have to pretend you don't. There's no shame in genuinely liking something popular, as long as you like it independently of its popularity and also have no shame in liking something unpopular.
That said, I don't like George on a girl at all! But I do think you should choose a name by the sound and overall feel. I also think some boy names (that have never been commonly used for girls) are feminine without being typical "girl names" and vice versa. When I think of "masculine" and "feminine", it's not just about whether the name is a "girls name" or a "boys name". Plenty of names are neither feminine nor masculine without being strictly unisex names.
(examples: I think Astrid is masculine, Silas is feminine, and Conor is neither. But Astrid is definitely a girls name while Silas and Conor are definitely boys names. Some names just have qualities that I percieve as masculine or feminine.)
In practice, neutral is better since you want the name you pick to fit your baby's personality and you don't know if they're particularly masculine or feminine when they're born. But just on principle, you can have any name without reading that much into it. Having a boy name doesn't mean you're trying to be a boy. You can be a girl with a "boy name" just like you can be a girl and wear "boy clothes" (and both of those things are different from a masculine "girl name" and masculine "girl clothes"). I can wear a regular T-shirt, not a "girly" one from the girls section of the store, without people saying I'm trying to be a boy. So why would a name be any different?
It's like clothes: girls wearing pants is more popular than boys wearing dresses, but that doesn't mean girls shouldn't wear pants; it means boys should wear dresses more often so that it doesn't look "weird" to people. It's also like popular bands, movies, etc. Just because it's popular doesn't mean you can't like it for itself. Masculinity is culturally valued more than femininity, but if you like masculine things for themselves (not just because they're popular), you shouldn't have to pretend you don't. There's no shame in genuinely liking something popular, as long as you like it independently of its popularity and also have no shame in liking something unpopular.
That said, I don't like George on a girl at all! But I do think you should choose a name by the sound and overall feel. I also think some boy names (that have never been commonly used for girls) are feminine without being typical "girl names" and vice versa. When I think of "masculine" and "feminine", it's not just about whether the name is a "girls name" or a "boys name". Plenty of names are neither feminine nor masculine without being strictly unisex names.
(examples: I think Astrid is masculine, Silas is feminine, and Conor is neither. But Astrid is definitely a girls name while Silas and Conor are definitely boys names. Some names just have qualities that I percieve as masculine or feminine.)
In practice, neutral is better since you want the name you pick to fit your baby's personality and you don't know if they're particularly masculine or feminine when they're born. But just on principle, you can have any name without reading that much into it. Having a boy name doesn't mean you're trying to be a boy. You can be a girl with a "boy name" just like you can be a girl and wear "boy clothes" (and both of those things are different from a masculine "girl name" and masculine "girl clothes"). I can wear a regular T-shirt, not a "girly" one from the girls section of the store, without people saying I'm trying to be a boy. So why would a name be any different?
1
So why would a name be any different?...
One crucial difference is that you decide on a name for another person.
Clothes you can pick out for yourself after a certain age. Changing a name is harder and in some places not possible at all.
One crucial difference is that you decide on a name for another person.
Clothes you can pick out for yourself after a certain age. Changing a name is harder and in some places not possible at all.
1
Agreed, and a bit more rambling on gender
Agreed completely.
I’m actually really glad that I don’t have an overly feminine name, because it wouldn’t have fit me at all and would have probably ended in me changing it or using initials. I’m “female” but definitely lean more toward the masculine; kind of see myself as non-binary, actually.
Our society’s standards on male femininity are really messed up, and I’m all for using “girl names” on boys (someone mentioned Astrid, which I think would work on a boy). That doesn’t mean that masculinity shouldn’t be allowed for girls/women though, because enforcing traditional femininity is still a step backwards IMO and doesn’t get us any closer to gender liberation.
Totally realize I’m rambling, and I know I’m biased by my own gender non-conformity. Most people are totally or at least mostly okay with traditional gender norms. It’s just a perspective that doesn’t get shared much, so it seemed worth sharing.
Agreed completely.
I’m actually really glad that I don’t have an overly feminine name, because it wouldn’t have fit me at all and would have probably ended in me changing it or using initials. I’m “female” but definitely lean more toward the masculine; kind of see myself as non-binary, actually.
Our society’s standards on male femininity are really messed up, and I’m all for using “girl names” on boys (someone mentioned Astrid, which I think would work on a boy). That doesn’t mean that masculinity shouldn’t be allowed for girls/women though, because enforcing traditional femininity is still a step backwards IMO and doesn’t get us any closer to gender liberation.
Totally realize I’m rambling, and I know I’m biased by my own gender non-conformity. Most people are totally or at least mostly okay with traditional gender norms. It’s just a perspective that doesn’t get shared much, so it seemed worth sharing.
This message was edited 3/7/2018, 9:08 PM
1
I don't think anyone is saying that women/girls need to adhere to femininity, only that if they choose to their femininity should not be seen as any lesser than masculinity.
By the way this is coming from someone who identifies as more masculine, and I'm a woman. I'm not very feminine at all at least in the outward sense of being interested in makeup and clothes, but I hate it when I see more feminine women get torn down or devalued because they do like to be feminine.
By the way this is coming from someone who identifies as more masculine, and I'm a woman. I'm not very feminine at all at least in the outward sense of being interested in makeup and clothes, but I hate it when I see more feminine women get torn down or devalued because they do like to be feminine.
This message was edited 3/8/2018, 8:34 AM
1
YES!
This is exactly my reasoning!
Even names that are originally male are now written out because for fear they might sound girly.. as if that is such a terrible thing.
Women can be strong and powerful, but men must never seem feminine or soft.
This is exactly my reasoning!
Even names that are originally male are now written out because for fear they might sound girly.. as if that is such a terrible thing.
Women can be strong and powerful, but men must never seem feminine or soft.
1
But that just means that boys' names need more freedom, not that girls' names need less!
I say girls should take advantage of the freedom they have to use any kind of name, and boys should also use any kind of name because they should have the same amount of freedom.
I say girls should take advantage of the freedom they have to use any kind of name, and boys should also use any kind of name because they should have the same amount of freedom.
1
This is fine, but we don't live in a world yet where it's the case that girl names are used on boys nearly as frequently as boy names are used on girls. Until that happens when a boy name is used on girls it reinforces the perception that masculinity is the ideal and femininity is devalued.
This message was edited 3/8/2018, 8:35 AM
1
Yep, exactly my point.
It's so completely different standards. You can't even use a name that is originally male without copping so much crap.
I knew a boy named Madison and he gets horrible comments from everyone, even random strangers who will even ask if he is gay or transgendered..
But a girl named Kyle, Beau, Finlay or James, gets compliments on her 'strong' name.
As if femininity is a bad thing.. or to be remotely 'girly' is bad.
It's so completely different standards. You can't even use a name that is originally male without copping so much crap.
I knew a boy named Madison and he gets horrible comments from everyone, even random strangers who will even ask if he is gay or transgendered..
But a girl named Kyle, Beau, Finlay or James, gets compliments on her 'strong' name.
As if femininity is a bad thing.. or to be remotely 'girly' is bad.
1
Agreed completely
Agreed completely.
Agreed completely.
1
What comes to my mind,with such statement making, is that the parents are making this statement by way of their child. A person who may not have chosen to be a standard-bearer.
A parent who feels strongly about this issue might do better to change their own name.A father might no longer be Samuel.He'd be Suzette.
A parent who feels strongly about this issue might do better to change their own name.A father might no longer be Samuel.He'd be Suzette.
1
LOL Yes. I see.
1
I like!
1
Exactly
1
So name more boys Linda and Jennifer instead of not naming girls George.
It's like girls have name cooties or something and as soon as girls touch a name, it's off-limits to boys. Girls can be named George or whatever and that doesn't stop anyone from naming boys George (or Ashley or Linda or Jennifer or whatever). Especially if you're a celebrity, you can be a trendsetter.
It's like girls have name cooties or something and as soon as girls touch a name, it's off-limits to boys. Girls can be named George or whatever and that doesn't stop anyone from naming boys George (or Ashley or Linda or Jennifer or whatever). Especially if you're a celebrity, you can be a trendsetter.
1
Yeah except that's not actually how it works in real life. Ashley used to be a completely masculine name. Once it transferred to girls hardly anyone uses it on boys anymore, because of the fact that femininity is devalued, especially femininity in men.
1
Sure, in the U.S.
In the UK, the use of Ashley on girls never affected its use on boys. There's no hard and fast rule about this.
I wish every post on gender and naming didn't end in a sort of pile-on.
In the UK, the use of Ashley on girls never affected its use on boys. There's no hard and fast rule about this.
I wish every post on gender and naming didn't end in a sort of pile-on.
1
Maybe, people who name girls with boy names but not vice-versa really are motivated by sexism.
But I think there could be another explanation for why names only seem to cross gender in one direction. Tell me what you think about this...
If I invert the gender values, like if it's a sexist matriarchy - the logic of name gender directionality *could* stay the same.
I can imagine it going something like: 'Girls are too cool to seem damaged by masculine attributes; boys are not good enough to bear feminine attributes. A "girl" is always enough of whatever she is, by definition. Bearing a conventionally masculine name doesn't limit a girl, or make her less of a girl. Girlness can encompass all the possibilities of boyness, including bearing a masculine name, being a George - and still be genuinely feminine. But a "boy" can never be enough, he doesn't have what it takes to be a Linda. It would only point up how boyness is limited. Masculinity is too weak, it self-destructs and becomes pathetic if it pretends at any girlness, like when a boy bears a conventionally feminine name.'
I don't think that is radically different from the apparent patriarchal-sexist logic, of girls seeming cool and strong with boynames, and boys seeming ridiculous and weak with girlnames ... it's just framed with different evaluation of boys and girls.
So I wonder if it's just the nature of gender as a principle of existence, and has less to do with human gender or sex or hierarchy. The principle of gender is necessary, and exists even without any relationship to humans and their differences and roles. We associate feminine and masculine, with girls and boys, and gendered things like names - but at least some of that is arbitrary and unnecessary.
Think of the nature of light and dark: you can turn on a light in the dark. You can make it dark by shutting out light. But you can't turn on a darkness in the light, or make it light by shutting out darkness.
The masculine and feminine principles have that kind of difference. I think people know this intuitively, even though it doesn't map absolutely onto any difference between human genders. I think this could be part of why names seem to only go one way across genders easily, and even people who are critically conscious of gender role stereotyping still feel less comfy with boy names on girls, than vice-versa.
Any thoughts on this?
But I think there could be another explanation for why names only seem to cross gender in one direction. Tell me what you think about this...
If I invert the gender values, like if it's a sexist matriarchy - the logic of name gender directionality *could* stay the same.
I can imagine it going something like: 'Girls are too cool to seem damaged by masculine attributes; boys are not good enough to bear feminine attributes. A "girl" is always enough of whatever she is, by definition. Bearing a conventionally masculine name doesn't limit a girl, or make her less of a girl. Girlness can encompass all the possibilities of boyness, including bearing a masculine name, being a George - and still be genuinely feminine. But a "boy" can never be enough, he doesn't have what it takes to be a Linda. It would only point up how boyness is limited. Masculinity is too weak, it self-destructs and becomes pathetic if it pretends at any girlness, like when a boy bears a conventionally feminine name.'
I don't think that is radically different from the apparent patriarchal-sexist logic, of girls seeming cool and strong with boynames, and boys seeming ridiculous and weak with girlnames ... it's just framed with different evaluation of boys and girls.
So I wonder if it's just the nature of gender as a principle of existence, and has less to do with human gender or sex or hierarchy. The principle of gender is necessary, and exists even without any relationship to humans and their differences and roles. We associate feminine and masculine, with girls and boys, and gendered things like names - but at least some of that is arbitrary and unnecessary.
Think of the nature of light and dark: you can turn on a light in the dark. You can make it dark by shutting out light. But you can't turn on a darkness in the light, or make it light by shutting out darkness.
The masculine and feminine principles have that kind of difference. I think people know this intuitively, even though it doesn't map absolutely onto any difference between human genders. I think this could be part of why names seem to only go one way across genders easily, and even people who are critically conscious of gender role stereotyping still feel less comfy with boy names on girls, than vice-versa.
Any thoughts on this?
1
Eh? Well, speaking in purely hypothetical terms, couldn't they still be equal. Couldn't we honor both sides in both genders? I'm super into a few girl names on boys. Like Sophia. What a wonderful feminine attribute Sophia represents. How exciting it would be to honor that attribute in naming a male child!
I think we're intuitively less comfortable with the swapping because we're intuitively less comfortable with femininity. Honor of any kind of feminine principle has not been functional in Western society for ages.
Sure, it does point to a weakness of masculinity - but only in the indirect way, that all explicit huffing and puffing of masculine values does.
I think we're intuitively less comfortable with the swapping because we're intuitively less comfortable with femininity. Honor of any kind of feminine principle has not been functional in Western society for ages.
Sure, it does point to a weakness of masculinity - but only in the indirect way, that all explicit huffing and puffing of masculine values does.
1
Hm, obviously I didn't communicate what I was trying to say. I was talking about intuitions based not on gender (man/woman) as a human expression but Gender as an abstract principle, a fundamental asymmetry, a duality that isn't really two separate things but arises from conceptualization ... yin and yang? The Genders (not the genders man and woman) that are asymmetrically interdependent. Symmetry and equality are two different things... Geez, nevermind. I don't think I'm going to be able to successfully communicate what I'm trying to explain here.
I'm not intuitively less comfortable with femininity, and I don't really think masculinity is "weak." Discomfort with femininity corresponds to insecurity in masculinity, and weak masculinity is only weak because femininity is degraded.
I think the feminine principles have been honored and functional in Western society. It's *women* who have been dishonored. Feminine things that are *about women* are dishonored. Feminine principles, though, have been disassociated with women, and made out to be abstractions for men to pursue, control, and possess. While masculine principles have remained associated with men.
Anyway I think it's interesting how people feel about the naming thing ... I'm curious about exactly what people think differently from me, if they did see what I was trying to say, but still think boys-with-girl-names would be really positive. If anyone wants to talk about it, feel free to PM me.
I'm not intuitively less comfortable with femininity, and I don't really think masculinity is "weak." Discomfort with femininity corresponds to insecurity in masculinity, and weak masculinity is only weak because femininity is degraded.
I think the feminine principles have been honored and functional in Western society. It's *women* who have been dishonored. Feminine things that are *about women* are dishonored. Feminine principles, though, have been disassociated with women, and made out to be abstractions for men to pursue, control, and possess. While masculine principles have remained associated with men.
Anyway I think it's interesting how people feel about the naming thing ... I'm curious about exactly what people think differently from me, if they did see what I was trying to say, but still think boys-with-girl-names would be really positive. If anyone wants to talk about it, feel free to PM me.
This message was edited 3/8/2018, 1:15 PM
1
I think feminine principles haven't been honored, and that women aren't really separate from them. The thesis-driven essay is my go-to example - it was driven down everyone's throats, and people aren't even aware it's biased. What about the reflective or open-ended or mysterious essay? Syntax that opens up, rather than trying to prove? But it's all over the place. Brutalization of natural places rather than respect and incorporation of them into living places. Competitive and achievement based diction being inherent in almost every structure. Job hierarchies being thought of as hierarchies, where bosses are "on top" rather than equal-level facilitators of other people's jobs.
I agree that when one is degraded the other is weakened. But consciously, on the level of conscious choices, our society has favored the cosmetic strength of masculinity in general and men specifically, over femininity in general and women specifically, in almost every area there has been a choice.
That's changing now, I think, but it is the cultural world I inherited.
I agree that when one is degraded the other is weakened. But consciously, on the level of conscious choices, our society has favored the cosmetic strength of masculinity in general and men specifically, over femininity in general and women specifically, in almost every area there has been a choice.
That's changing now, I think, but it is the cultural world I inherited.
1
I see the stuff on your laundry list as the expression of cultural beliefs about reality and what we are. I think misogyny is a sibling of that stuff, not a source of it. Anyway, I take your point, that in the sense you mean, feminine concepts are devalued and not honored. And it's not just out of misogyny, nor for the sake of gender hierarchy. Yep.
I guess my question to you is - what effect would you hope it would have, to name boys with feminine names? Would those become formerly-feminine names? How, exactly, do you suppose it would work to improve anything - if as many boys were named with traditional girl-names, as there are girls named with traditional boy-names? Or do you just feel that it would be positive, exciting, and don't think it's worth it to theorize about problem-solving, because like, things just flow? (no snark)
Yeah of course.
My idea was that it's possible, that our explanations of "society's conscious choices," of why people decide as they do about baby names, don't reflect conscious awareness of all of the influences on individual choices. I'm trying to figure how it can be, that people who really feel the asymmetry derives from sexism, who are eager to defy sexist norms, still aren't really willing to walk the talk. I don't think they're necessarily just programmed or hypocritical. It's not that I think the asymmetry of cross-gender naming is never sexist, and it's not that I don't appreciate why people interpret it as sexist.
I guess my question to you is - what effect would you hope it would have, to name boys with feminine names? Would those become formerly-feminine names? How, exactly, do you suppose it would work to improve anything - if as many boys were named with traditional girl-names, as there are girls named with traditional boy-names? Or do you just feel that it would be positive, exciting, and don't think it's worth it to theorize about problem-solving, because like, things just flow? (no snark)
Yeah of course.
My idea was that it's possible, that our explanations of "society's conscious choices," of why people decide as they do about baby names, don't reflect conscious awareness of all of the influences on individual choices. I'm trying to figure how it can be, that people who really feel the asymmetry derives from sexism, who are eager to defy sexist norms, still aren't really willing to walk the talk. I don't think they're necessarily just programmed or hypocritical. It's not that I think the asymmetry of cross-gender naming is never sexist, and it's not that I don't appreciate why people interpret it as sexist.
This message was edited 3/9/2018, 1:58 PM
1
100% agree
1
Agreed
1
Yeah, I'm with you on this I think. It's not advancing the idea of nonconformity (which I'm all for) if it's only going one way, it's just more of the same masculine-to-feminine shift in name usage that we've been seeing for decades that has all sorts of weird sexist implications. Call me when a celeb names their son Rose or something and doesn't get crap for it, y'know?
This message was edited 3/6/2018, 10:41 PM
1