Well, of course my natural instinct here is to defend the fact that we named our daughter Ashley in 1994. But I offer my defense with an explanation that you may not have considered. I was not raised Catholic. My H was raised in the N.O. suburban church culture of the 70's. We were not "religious" at the time of our daughter's birth. I did not perceive at that time that the name "Ashley" was a male name. In fact any name with the "eee" sound on the end doesn't sound very masculine to me .. while acknowledging that little boys are sometimes called "Billy" or "Bobby" or grown men in the South still answer to the little boy sounding names.
It was only years later, upon seeing "Gone with the Wind" that I realized that at least as early as the 1860's, an upper class gentleman from the south may have been named "Ashley." I haven't done much research on this, but I think like Hilary, the name originated in England, was a man's name and may in fact have initially been a surname that became a first name.
If I had been a Catholic at the time of our daughter's birth, I would have chosen a name of an officially recognized saint. But as it is, she may just become the first St. Ashley in history! Or she'll become a religious, change her name and be known by that name.
I agree that names that are currently understood to be male names, like "Glenn," "Cameron" or "Michael" (all names of current actresses) have no business being attached to the identities of little girls. Morgan, Reagan, Taylor are all hard sounding and unappealing to the ear.
I just wanted to mention this to some of you posters that hadn't considered that not everyone springs forth in this world as perfectly formed Catholics. Some of us come along later on and do the best we can .
Topic: Why are little girls given traditionally boy names? (Read 6556 times)