JAMES P. writes:

I am fascinated at how many women in this article want to emasculate their sons.

“We liked it that the name carried no image of masculinity” — Gee, why would you want that in a boy?

Levy said, “I wanted to imbue my sons with feminist values” — Why, oh why, do you want to emasculate him??? He’s your son! Don’t you want him to grow up to be a man? 

“Naming your kid Robert after your grandfather who invented the flyswatter and bought the house in Newport is a very different kind of holding onto an outmoded form of masculinity.” — Apparently being a man is outmoded.

Laura writes:

Boys’ names for girls are also more popular, names like Courtney and Drew. But as far as I know, few girls are given traditional boys’ names. I have never met a girl named George or Mark or Peter, or a boy named Sarah. The trend is for androgyny.

James P. responds:

These androgynous girls’ names are also a product of women in the grip of crazed feminist ideology.

                                                             — Comments —

Y. writes:

Probably the biggest reason traditional male names like George aren’t used for girls yet is because they sound out-of-date and are not trendy enough (unless they cycle back into popularity). Note that Madison (meaning Son of Maud) is very masculine, not at all androgynous, yet it’s a popular girl’s name. 

It seems a feminist goal is for females to be as male-like as possible, so maybe the reason they don’t give their sons traditional girls’ names is because of their aversion to femininity? I wonder if their desire to emasculate males will overcome that aversion. 

On the link, there were these comments –

stop2think

Well, why not gender neutral names for boys? We have been raising generations of neutered boys since the 80’s or so. So now we have boys who cannot play sports unless everyone wins, they cannot look at a girl crosseyed less they be hauled into the principal’s office for sensitivity training, they cannot be rambunctious and noisy as boys should be without being dosed up on Ritalin, they cannot play cowboys and Indians without being labled agressive or racist. When they grow hair they must shave it to look like marble statues (or women), they must express their feelings and wear their hearts on their sleeves like women at a girl’s night out. So, sure, why not name them as they will be raised: spineless, feminine, and pierced.

Alan Davidson

Hunter will be the one who’ll answer the call to protect our Country from \terrorists in countries that would stone Maxfield and his girlfriends to death.

Alan Roebuck writes:

About your post on boys’ names: In the linked article, Miss Satran writes:

Of the Top 10 boys’ names last year, only two from the all-century list, Michael and William, still make the cut. The rest are names that would make Don (aka Dick) Draper choke on his Old-Fashioned:

1. Jacob
2. Ethan
3. Michael
4. Alexander
5. William
6. Joshua
7. Daniel
8. Jayden
9. Noah
10. Anthony

Satran acts as if the new names are unmasculine. And perhaps parents chose them believing them to be so. But consider:

Jacob: Old Testament patriarch, as in “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
Ethan: Revolutionary warrior and American hero.
Alexander: the name of several Tsars, as well as conqueror of half the known world.
Joshua: Another biblical patriarch and warrior for God.
Daniel: Prophet of God, author of Holy Writ, and survivor of the lion’s den.
Jayden: No comment.
Noah: Another patriarch and prophet, savior of the human race.
Anthony: the name of several Catholic saints, and sissy boys don’t become saints. 

Based solely on the historical meanings of these names, masculinity and patriarchy are still going strong!

Laura writes:

Good point. The real story here is just how popular traditional names remain.

N.W. writes:

What about a boy named Sue?

Please follow and like us: