New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Clarification ... and long story
in reply to a message by Elinor
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
Anyways ... if your answer was (a) then most of the above was irrelevant anyway, but I genuinely am interested in these opinions of yours. You don't seem to want to debate them - normally if someone offers new food of thought on this subject that even remotely challenges what you believe, you ignore the thread. You won't get anywhere with your opinions if you avoid standing up for them.
Let me clarify something: None of this is in a raised tone of "voice". I am not being confrontational. I would be really, really interested in your reply if you would like to post one.
~Elinor
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
Anyways ... if your answer was (a) then most of the above was irrelevant anyway, but I genuinely am interested in these opinions of yours. You don't seem to want to debate them - normally if someone offers new food of thought on this subject that even remotely challenges what you believe, you ignore the thread. You won't get anywhere with your opinions if you avoid standing up for them.
Let me clarify something: None of this is in a raised tone of "voice". I am not being confrontational. I would be really, really interested in your reply if you would like to post one.
~Elinor
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1