|
|
|
| Subject: | Re: Is Charlie really a uni-sex name now? |
| Author: | Lily (Authenticated as Destry) |
| Date: | May 12, 2012 at 11:43:40 AM |
| Reply to: | Re: Is Charlie really a uni-sex name now? by queenv |
Yes, I know. Which is why I was surprised that you were still convinced that it is something new. It isn't. I understand that you didn't grow up with many girls who had masculine names but that doesn't mean they weren't there. Tracy, Stacy, Shirley, Kelly - extremely common names for girls. I think Kelly made the top 10 and Shirley was #2. I agree that these surnames are more feminine sounding but I think Charlie is equally sweet sounding with it's -lie ending (same ending as Kelly, Shirley and Ashley after all. At least the sound is the same). As -ie is often considered more feminine that -ey (Ashlie is definitely a girl whether Ashley could be a boy) I just don't see how Charlie is any more masculine. I mean if it's more masculine to you, that's fine, but it is your opinion and not a fact.
I find it funny that you think Bailey doesn't sound feminine at all. To me it's one of the most feminine sounding unisex names. Bay can also be a name (I like it as a word name), Lee is definitely unisex plus it rhymes with Hayley and Kayley. But to each their own. I understand it might some masculine to some people. The first Bailey I met was actually male. I have never met one since. I don't really understand why people find it so masculine. Even though it was used a bit in the 1800s it never made the top 400 and as more people were named popular (top 100 names) back then I doubt most people have ever met a male Bailey. It left the top 1000 in 1921 and except for 1937 never appeared in the top 1000 again until 1992 when it was already in the top 200 for girls.
Sorry this got way too long but I just looked Bailey up and was intrigued by its popularity.
I mean it's fine that people think Bailey, Ashley etc are too masculine for a girl. To each their own. I just think it's a little much to claim that people steal all the good boys names (I mean seriously, if Bailey is such a good name for a boy, how come hardly anyone ever thought of using it? Same with Hadley, which only made the top 1000 twice in 1908 and 1909 or Ainsley (never made the top 1000 for boys at all) etc.). Most of these names have never been common for boys. Ashley, Lindsey, Courtney, Haley, Stacy, Shirley - never popular for boys at all. I think the highest any of these placed was number 200-something ages ago.
Again I understand when people find them masculine and ugly etc I just don't really get how people get mad because someone uses a name for a girl that has been out of the top 1000 for boys for the past 100 years and claim that they stole it.This message was edited by the author on May 12, 2012 at 11:45:48 AM
| Because this message is archived you cannot respond to it. |
| Messages in this thread: |
| Home : Boards : Name Opinions Message Board |
About |
Copyright © |
Terms |
Contact Advertising served by
 |
Post a Message
Search
Help/Rules/FAQ
Board Home
Other Boards