Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Why are little girls given traditionally boy names?  (Read 6522 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why are little girls given traditionally boy names?
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2011, 06:27:38 AM »
Quote from: Daegus
Madison is also a male name.


I would have thought this is more a case of giving a child a last name as a first name.  I've only heard this name given as a first name to girls, but it is clearly not feminine and I've known a couple of families with the name of Madison.

Quote
Since when were the names you just used traditional?


They're not.  They're just stupid names stupid parents give their kids.

Though the problem of names started a long time ago, it accelerated to the absurd around 1960 and hasn't let up one bit.

Why are little girls given traditionally boy names?
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2011, 07:34:57 AM »
Men's hair was worn longer than the 50's in the past, however it was never the norm to be longer than women's hair. I think in the Bible it condemns men growing their hair out like women.

In today's world long hair on men is a result of the 60's rebellion and anti-authority stance of the peaceniks. Later it was adopted by similarly countercultural rock musicians. Thus context of time and place matters. A man can't grow his hair out in 2011 claiming to oppose the French Revolution and be considered anything other than insane.


Why are little girls given traditionally boy names?
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2011, 08:35:34 AM »
In the south, it's quite common to give little girls names that are also family (last) names as first names. My own daughter has a "last-name-first-name." I think it's quite traditional, but I guess because I was born after 1900 I've been tainted with modernism in your eyes. :laugh1:

I don't have a Hunter or a McKenzie, but I like those names a lot better than Elbert or Bertha. And while I think TKGS was joking, I know of a trad family with seven children who all have saints names, and there really is a Polycarp and Athanasius in there. Poor boys. Totally ridiculous. Starshine and Moonbeam would have been better.

Why are little girls given traditionally boy names?
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2011, 08:47:03 AM »
I agree last names are ridiculous for first names. Also I can't stand all the cutesy weird variations of normal names. Like "Topher". What a stupid name. Is it supposed to be short for Christopher?

Catholic kids should be named after Saints. Doesn't have to be St. Polycarp for goodness sake, but there are PLENTY of Saints names to choose from without having to resort to calling your daughter "Reagan" or "MacKenzie".

Why are little girls given traditionally boy names?
« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2011, 08:59:32 AM »
Quote from: SouthernBelle
In the south, it's quite common to give little girls names that are also family (last) names as first names. My own daughter has a "last-name-first-name." I think it's quite traditional, but I guess because I was born after 1900 I've been tainted with modernism in your eyes. :laugh1:

I don't have a Hunter or a McKenzie, but I like those names a lot better than Elbert or Bertha.


It's not so much "modernism" as it is anglo post-Christianity.  How many people go by initials in the South?  It certainly is as tendency to move away from the idea of patron saints - a person's first name is called their "Christian" name - what's Christian about a last name put first?  How can one christen their child at Baptism with that and not in some sense showing less reverence than is due?  It seems to be characteristic of a non-Christian mason dominated culture.

I can't believe you think Hunter and McKenzie are better than Elbert and Bertha (not that anyone would have to choose those names in particular[/quote]


And while I think TKGS was joking, I know of a trad family with seven children who all have saints names, and there really is a Polycarp and Athanasius in there. Poor boys. Totally ridiculous. Starshine and Moonbeam would have been better.[/quote]

You really think so?  Starshine and Moonbeam better than names of saints?  Maybe some saints names sound eccentric but they are given to honor saints - an intention that should not be treated with irreverent mocking of putting "starshine" and "moonbeam" above the name of a Catholic saint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_Kircher

Can you imagine this man's name as Starshine and Moonbeam?

I think you should analyze your way of thinking and consider whether or not it's heavily influenced by very crude and childish prejudices that you have possibly imbibed from other women in this culture.