Results 31 to 35 of 38
Thread: What do you think of Lincoln?
May 10th, 2013 05:40 PM #31Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
I think that Lincoln is such a great boys name, but as a surname name I suppose it is fair game for any gender. And it fits with a celeb trend that will at least make it easier for a girl to wear, though I think it is a low-brow and confusing choice for the most part. I would suggest a double barrel name...though Mary might pair oddly. Linka would be awesome though. Lynn or Linda would be refreshing on a little kid.
May 11th, 2013 07:02 PM #33no kids yet, not trying... just a name lover with an ever-changing list, an amazing bf and lots of dreams for the future!
- current loves-
Genevieve - Aurelia - Penelope - Clementine - Matilda - Aurora - Josephine - Leila - Daphne
Maxwell - Dexter - Frederick - Oliver - Cyrus - Atticus - Wilder - Archer - Beckett
May 12th, 2013 02:23 AM #35
The fact that people are avoiding this more obvious and fundamental underlying issue and instead jumping to the more farfetched assumption, pointing the finger at the parents who give their girls unisex or traditionally male names as the sexists, is perplexing..especially since some of the sentiments expressed in these comments seem more concerned over "yet another" surname name being "snatched" away by the girls rather than being genuinely dismayed at sexism in society that leads some parents of young boys to thus deem those names as unusable for fear of being associated with anything feminine. The most likely reason for parents using unisex names, apart from just liking the sound and feel of a certain name and not automatically deciding on or discounting it based on the baby's gender, is that many are simply sick of most traditionally female names ending with the -a and -ee/ie/y/ey/eigh sounds, and want to branch out and have more options. But that explanation doesn't suit the name segregationists who don't want to come out and say, "I think everything should be male or female and nothing in between," so they instead accuse the girls' parents of being sexist, even though most feminists, including myself, would find that logic very dubious.
Surname names are COMPLETELY fair game - the idea repeatedly being insinuated in this thread that surname names are somehow essentially male or just because they were initially used by boys they must then always be exclusive to males and girls cannot be allowed to "steal" them away is strange and indisputably sexist. I even saw the tradition (and it is a tradition not a trend, especially in places like the South) of giving surname names to females described as "downmarket," which is both untrue and really snide/classist language that tells you more about the commenter than the people she thinks she's describing. At least in my upper middle class neck of the woods, surname names on girls aren't uncommon at all, but even if a name or trend WAS associated with lower-income people, the idea that the name/trend is thus undesirable is so gross.
What is considered "feminine" in both life, personality, occupation, dress, colors, and names is fluid and constantly changing. We don't make ethnicity a prerequisite for gaining "access" to names so why on earth should we have to do that with gender? Why can't a boy be named after an awesome goddess like Artemis, an idea floated in an earlier Nameberry blog post, which drew similar cries of "That's unacceptable! You can't name a BOY after a GIRL!" Inherent in that outcry is an idea that whatever attractive or neat connotations Artemis evokes - bows & arrows, hunting, the moon - gender overrides it all; it is, apparently, the most important thing about us. We are girls and boys before we are individuals and we should without exception preclude whole classes/categories of names from consideration for a kid solely on the basis of what genitalia they were born with. Girls shouldn't be named after male presidents nor boys after goddesses, etc. The way people talk about breaching gender divides, you'd think concepts of masculinity and femininity entailed some sort of morality. Luckily, perhaps because the male/female leaning of a name is becoming harder and harder to keep track of nowadays what with all the fluctuation, it seems parents are less uptight about giving their boys names used more frequently for girls - those names are not dropping precipitously for boys the way they might've in the past.
Well, that's the end of my rant. I'm sorry the condescension and automatic rejection in this thread has dampened your love for Lincoln but I'd urge you to stick to your guns. Your daughter will wear the name and make it her own and even people with knee-jerk negative reactions to unisex/surname names will warm to it once they get to know your lovely daughter and associate it with her (and I promise the average person is unlikely to be as hung up and pursed lipped over this issue as Nameberry forum users) - I've had that happen to me with many a name that are far, far more outlandish and 'unlovable' than Lincoln. Lincoln will probably be mostly associated with boys for the foreseeable future, but if that doesn't bother you (and I don't see why it should), go for it. It's both stately and cute/charming.
Last edited by gretel; May 12th, 2013 at 06:12 AM.
May 12th, 2013 05:40 AM #37Junior Member
- Join Date
- May 2013
May 12th, 2013 04:14 PM #39
Madison, Addison, Mackenzie, McKenna... all surnames. All MASCULINE NAMES. They mean "son of" for crying out loud. How can you say that they're fair game for girls? The meaning specifically says "SON OF".
And for the record, many of the women here who despise boys names on girls do like these names on boys and would use one or more of them.** The opinions expressed above are not meant to be reflective of Nameberry as a whole but are my opinion and mine alone. **
Henry Nathaniel (3) and Julia Paige (1)
Bennett - Emmett - Felix - Oliver - Owen - Preston - Samuel
Abigail - Claire - Clara - Hope - Lydia - Maude - Molly