Anonymous wrote:My generation Z cousins named their kids Logan and Taylor (both boys) and Maxwell and Harrison (nn Harry), the later two which are family names (my grandpa is Harrison, Maxwell is my Nana's maiden name).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

+1 and often the desire for a “gender neutral” name just means wanting to avoid femininity. People want to secure an advantage for their daughters by making sure they don’t have a [unserious, silly, weak] feminine name. It’s subconscious misogyny masked as being progressive.

I don’t agree. Kyle, for example, has always been used by both sexes. Same with Dana, Grayson (and surname-first-name), Avery. It’s not like they’re naming their kids Harold or John.

I have heard many people IRL and on boards like this talk about choosing a unisex, or less feminine, name for their daughter specifically because it sounds more "professional" or "successful." People don't realize it, but the reason they instinctively fine less feminine/more masculine names to be "stronger" or more professional is misogyny. It's a learned association of masculine names with certain expectations (work, money, seriousness) and feminine names with certain expectations (beauty, care work, frivolity).

It applies to multiple categories of name. The last-name-as-first trend (Kennedy, Madison, Grayson, etc.). The unisex names (Sloane, Greer, Dana, Kyle, etc.). The unisex-nickname-on-feminine-full-name (Max/Maine, Sam/Samantha, Frankie/Francesca, etc).

You can also see it in the way people respond to a name that become unisex. Dana was a masculine name that became unisex when people started using it for their daughters. And now people are reluctant to use it for sons because it is "too feminine". Same with Ashley. People instinctively gravitate towards masculine names and reject feminine ones. Because we value men over women. It's okay for girls to be more masculine, but we are uncomfortable with boys being more feminine.

Gen Z and Millenials think they are being progressive and transgressive with unisex names. But in the end, it's part of a long trend of rejecting femininity as weak and unappealing. It's been around a long time.

This is true. Until you start naming boys Mary, Lisa, Sarah, Gladys, Gloria, Anne, Isabelle, and Sue, you aren't being gender neutral, you are are rejecting the feminine.

Same with baby clothes. Going gender neutral just means dressing girls in "boy" clothes. I know so many new moms who tried that and then their daughters got to preschool and only wanted dresses, bows, ruffles, tutus, etc.

I have two girls and as babies put them mostly in neutral clothes. Once they were old enough to choose, one wanted all “girly” clothes with pink and floofy, glitter etc. The other goes back and forth.

I have no problem with this as it is their choice (influenced by societal expectations, peers, etc for sure). When they are babies they have no choice.

I was the same with my DD (whose now loves pink and bows) but the point is that it’s not really a unisex trend because boys don’t get dressed in unisex clothes or get unused names— they are dressed in boy clothes and get masculine names.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

+1 and often the desire for a “gender neutral” name just means wanting to avoid femininity. People want to secure an advantage for their daughters by making sure they don’t have a [unserious, silly, weak] feminine name. It’s subconscious misogyny masked as being progressive.

I don’t agree. Kyle, for example, has always been used by both sexes. Same with Dana, Grayson (and surname-first-name), Avery. It’s not like they’re naming their kids Harold or John.

I have heard many people IRL and on boards like this talk about choosing a unisex, or less feminine, name for their daughter specifically because it sounds more "professional" or "successful." People don't realize it, but the reason they instinctively fine less feminine/more masculine names to be "stronger" or more professional is misogyny. It's a learned association of masculine names with certain expectations (work, money, seriousness) and feminine names with certain expectations (beauty, care work, frivolity).

It applies to multiple categories of name. The last-name-as-first trend (Kennedy, Madison, Grayson, etc.). The unisex names (Sloane, Greer, Dana, Kyle, etc.). The unisex-nickname-on-feminine-full-name (Max/Maine, Sam/Samantha, Frankie/Francesca, etc).

You can also see it in the way people respond to a name that become unisex. Dana was a masculine name that became unisex when people started using it for their daughters. And now people are reluctant to use it for sons because it is "too feminine". Same with Ashley. People instinctively gravitate towards masculine names and reject feminine ones. Because we value men over women. It's okay for girls to be more masculine, but we are uncomfortable with boys being more feminine.

Gen Z and Millenials think they are being progressive and transgressive with unisex names. But in the end, it's part of a long trend of rejecting femininity as weak and unappealing. It's been around a long time.

This is true. Until you start naming boys Mary, Lisa, Sarah, Gladys, Gloria, Anne, Isabelle, and Sue, you aren't being gender neutral, you are are rejecting the feminine.

Same with baby clothes. Going gender neutral just means dressing girls in "boy" clothes. I know so many new moms who tried that and then their daughters got to preschool and only wanted dresses, bows, ruffles, tutus, etc.

I have two girls and as babies put them mostly in neutral clothes. Once they were old enough to choose, one wanted all “girly” clothes with pink and floofy, glitter etc. The other goes back and forth.

I have no problem with this as it is their choice (influenced by societal expectations, peers, etc for sure). When they are babies they have no choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

+1 and often the desire for a “gender neutral” name just means wanting to avoid femininity. People want to secure an advantage for their daughters by making sure they don’t have a [unserious, silly, weak] feminine name. It’s subconscious misogyny masked as being progressive.

I don’t agree. Kyle, for example, has always been used by both sexes. Same with Dana, Grayson (and surname-first-name), Avery. It’s not like they’re naming their kids Harold or John.

I have heard many people IRL and on boards like this talk about choosing a unisex, or less feminine, name for their daughter specifically because it sounds more "professional" or "successful." People don't realize it, but the reason they instinctively fine less feminine/more masculine names to be "stronger" or more professional is misogyny. It's a learned association of masculine names with certain expectations (work, money, seriousness) and feminine names with certain expectations (beauty, care work, frivolity).

It applies to multiple categories of name. The last-name-as-first trend (Kennedy, Madison, Grayson, etc.). The unisex names (Sloane, Greer, Dana, Kyle, etc.). The unisex-nickname-on-feminine-full-name (Max/Maine, Sam/Samantha, Frankie/Francesca, etc).

You can also see it in the way people respond to a name that become unisex. Dana was a masculine name that became unisex when people started using it for their daughters. And now people are reluctant to use it for sons because it is "too feminine". Same with Ashley. People instinctively gravitate towards masculine names and reject feminine ones. Because we value men over women. It's okay for girls to be more masculine, but we are uncomfortable with boys being more feminine.

Gen Z and Millenials think they are being progressive and transgressive with unisex names. But in the end, it's part of a long trend of rejecting femininity as weak and unappealing. It's been around a long time.

This is true. Until you start naming boys Mary, Lisa, Sarah, Gladys, Gloria, Anne, Isabelle, and Sue, you aren't being gender neutral, you are are rejecting the feminine.

Same with baby clothes. Going gender neutral just means dressing girls in "boy" clothes. I know so many new moms who tried that and then their daughters got to preschool and only wanted dresses, bows, ruffles, tutus, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

+1 and often the desire for a “gender neutral” name just means wanting to avoid femininity. People want to secure an advantage for their daughters by making sure they don’t have a [unserious, silly, weak] feminine name. It’s subconscious misogyny masked as being progressive.

I don’t agree. Kyle, for example, has always been used by both sexes. Same with Dana, Grayson (and surname-first-name), Avery. It’s not like they’re naming their kids Harold or John.

I have heard many people IRL and on boards like this talk about choosing a unisex, or less feminine, name for their daughter specifically because it sounds more "professional" or "successful." People don't realize it, but the reason they instinctively fine less feminine/more masculine names to be "stronger" or more professional is misogyny. It's a learned association of masculine names with certain expectations (work, money, seriousness) and feminine names with certain expectations (beauty, care work, frivolity).

It applies to multiple categories of name. The last-name-as-first trend (Kennedy, Madison, Grayson, etc.). The unisex names (Sloane, Greer, Dana, Kyle, etc.). The unisex-nickname-on-feminine-full-name (Max/Maine, Sam/Samantha, Frankie/Francesca, etc).

You can also see it in the way people respond to a name that become unisex. Dana was a masculine name that became unisex when people started using it for their daughters. And now people are reluctant to use it for sons because it is "too feminine". Same with Ashley. People instinctively gravitate towards masculine names and reject feminine ones. Because we value men over women. It's okay for girls to be more masculine, but we are uncomfortable with boys being more feminine.

Gen Z and Millenials think they are being progressive and transgressive with unisex names. But in the end, it's part of a long trend of rejecting femininity as weak and unappealing. It's been around a long time.

This is true. Until you start naming boys Mary, Lisa, Sarah, Gladys, Gloria, Anne, Isabelle, and Sue, you aren't being gender neutral, you are are rejecting the feminine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

+1 and often the desire for a “gender neutral” name just means wanting to avoid femininity. People want to secure an advantage for their daughters by making sure they don’t have a [unserious, silly, weak] feminine name. It’s subconscious misogyny masked as being progressive.

I don’t agree. Kyle, for example, has always been used by both sexes. Same with Dana, Grayson (and surname-first-name), Avery. It’s not like they’re naming their kids Harold or John.

I have heard many people IRL and on boards like this talk about choosing a unisex, or less feminine, name for their daughter specifically because it sounds more "professional" or "successful." People don't realize it, but the reason they instinctively fine less feminine/more masculine names to be "stronger" or more professional is misogyny. It's a learned association of masculine names with certain expectations (work, money, seriousness) and feminine names with certain expectations (beauty, care work, frivolity).

It applies to multiple categories of name. The last-name-as-first trend (Kennedy, Madison, Grayson, etc.). The unisex names (Sloane, Greer, Dana, Kyle, etc.). The unisex-nickname-on-feminine-full-name (Max/Maine, Sam/Samantha, Frankie/Francesca, etc).

You can also see it in the way people respond to a name that become unisex. Dana was a masculine name that became unisex when people started using it for their daughters. And now people are reluctant to use it for sons because it is "too feminine". Same with Ashley. People instinctively gravitate towards masculine names and reject feminine ones. Because we value men over women. It's okay for girls to be more masculine, but we are uncomfortable with boys being more feminine.

Gen Z and Millenials think they are being progressive and transgressive with unisex names. But in the end, it's part of a long trend of rejecting femininity as weak and unappealing. It's been around a long time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a girl, I’d be mad if I had a gender neutral or a boys name.

The trend I see is a female name with a gender neutral nickname.
Chris, Pat, Sam, Max, Bobby, Jamie, Alex, Shaun, Casey, Charlie, Billy, Quinn, Andy, Frankie, Kelly, Tracy, Randy, Elliot, Rudy, and so on.

Majority of these names read masculine to me, not gender neutral

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember that online content is written to get you to click. I'll bet there's a kernel of truth, but in practice, most people will name their kids Henry or Eleanor.

Not Henry or Eleanor. You have to think the next generation of grandma names. We'll be seeing baby Susan, Lisa, Amy, Jennifer, Jessica, Heather, Angela, Christine, Scott, Kevin, Brad. . .

It's like the Boomer generation names got skipped. Where are all the little Barbara, Carol, Linda, Donna, Karen, Lois, Deborah and Cheryls? Will the next generation go straight to Gen X names?

I have often wondered the same. I keep looking for Lindas.

Yep. Our daughters and sons will love those names. It’s part of the popularity circle. It hasn’t been skipped - it’s just not due yet.

It's hard to see some of those names pre-Boomer making a come back like Dorothy, Phyllis, Bernice, Norma, Shirley, Nancy, etc. They don't sound good to my ear at all. Some names just never come back in style.