Hey East, replying to your reply... No offense taken. You have a point. There's nothing inherently wrong with decorating one's body. Spa parties were just an example I randomly chose of something I find unsettling. I very much agree with you that it's strange when girls are told over and over how pretty they are. I hear it a lot. When I meet little girls, I always try to engage them about what they're interested in, what they're reading, what their dogs' names are :-) rather than jumping straight to "I love your hair!" Sounds like you do the same.
As I said, I don't think that focusing on physical beauty is inherently bad. That's where so much art comes from for goodness sake! But I think that blown out of proportion, it can and does feed objectification of women in a way that's unhealthy. Just look at the popularity of the Bella names. An alien visiting our planet might think we believed that beauty was the most important value to instill in a girl.
I don't think there's any harm in telling a child they're beautiful or handsome, but when it becomes the main thing they're hearing, it's an issue. Interestingly enough, I think the harm comes from women more than from men. I see a lot of girls hearing more negative based commentary regarding appearance from their mothers, aunts, friends, etc than from other men. I think men are more accepting than women are in terms of certain things.
Also, a lot of Bella names don't even have meanings that contain beautiful, which puzzles me on another level too. I think Belle and Bella are the only ones.
Do you honestly think any parent of a girl named Logan or Mason intended to be "anti-woman" or strike up a 10 page long debate about gender, sexuality, and feminism? No. They just liked the name and thought it was cool. And I bet you they would of considered the same name if their baby girl had been a boy. I have a unisex name that at one point was strictly masculine, and when I asked my mom what she would of named me if I had been a boy, the same thing. I was NEVER teased about my name or treated differently, it never made me feel less feminine than my friends. I like the name Sawyer for a girl, and I also like it for a boy. Same goes with *most* of the names on my list.
Humans have been naming their offspring for millions of years, names have come into existence and then faded away forever, historical usage of names varies by tribe, sect, province, religion, "fads," etc. How arrogant can we be to think our generation gets to decide what is female and what is male? For all we know, 200 years from now kids could be answering to numbers and random words from the English language that aren't in use anymore. Why do Native American languages have no grammatical gender? Their pool of names is based on the child's attributes, physical characteristics, time/place of birth, totem animal, etc. Why must names have a gender attached to them?
Naming a girl Michael, for example, sends out the message that "You're better off having people thing you're a boy, and having a boy name than a girl's name like Michaela or Michelle." in my opinion.
If such conversations seem like a waste, then don't participate. I find it interesting and I enjoy discussing this subject so I participate. Do I participate with the intention to change other people's minds and opinions? No, I don't at all. I participate to share and communicate. I don't view it as a waste of time to discuss something I find interesting.
I really don't understand how the comparison of boys names on girls is equaling to being against women in the workplace, abortion rights, and women not wearing pants...
names =/= pants, abortion, and workplace politics
I didn't say anything keeping things (which is coming across as a generalizing word referring to other subjects outside of names) traditionally masculine and feminine, I'm referring to names. I resent the fact that you're jumping to extremes.
There's no reason for a girl to be named Andrew, when there's Andrea/Andria/Andriana.
See that's it right there, "...thought it was cool.", yet a boy named Dana is more likely to be cringed at then thought of as "cool". Even though Dana is a boys/unisex name, and Logan/Mason are not unisex.
Boys names on girls sends out the message that a girl is better off with a boys name than a girls name. The added fact that most parents I've encountered have intentionally picked a boys name for their daughters because they think it'll be beneficial just adds to it.
I have an issue with that.
I find it interesting that you think it's limiting to leave boys names for boys, and girls names for girls. There are an abundance of names in the world, plus the added category of unisex names. There's no need for a girl to have a boys name, or a boy to have a girls name.
I also don't think a girl named Michael would be made fun of by her peers either, the children I'm around are very open-minded and don't think about names much at all.
I'm not here to tell you what to like and not to like, I'm simply sharing my opinion on the concept of boys names on girls, and why I disagree with it.
I find it interesting that you seem take such personal offense to this topic, it's not directed to you personally at all. I have no issue with you.
If this discussion is a waste of time, and your opinion is set, then don't participate and agree to disagree.