Results 96 to 100 of 146
April 10th, 2013 09:58 PM #96Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
April 10th, 2013 10:02 PM #98olivia, seventeen, obsessively maternal.
★ close to my heart / future darlings; ★
Estella - Oona - Margaret - Imogen - Billie - Eilidh - Jemima
Emmett - Eoghan - Wilf - Alec - Nicholas - William - Hugh
April 10th, 2013 10:21 PM #100
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?My cherished daughter, Rowan Jane. ~b. 10/2011~
Sawyer ~ Aven ~ Elowen ~ Sage ~ Eilonwy ~ Eleanor
Morgan ~ Asher ~ ___ ~ ___ ~ Currently trying to fill the blanks...
Trying for #2 in January 2014.
April 10th, 2013 10:27 PM #102
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.
April 10th, 2013 10:28 PM #104