For those of you who like "unisex" names ..?

Exactly.

I find a little girl named Spencer, Elliot or Riley to be just as strange as a little boy called Elizabeth, Sophia or Isabella.

It's a double standard that infuriates me, especially as most of these names are so masculine and have such history steeped behind them, that's discarded because someone thinks it'd be cute on their little girl.

Well, I don't like "unisex" names at all and I agree with you 100% but I have a pretty good idea why it is like this (in the US at least) not to be harsh or offend anyone but a lot of people simply just do not know here in the US that they were originally masculine names (especially the younger generations) they are uneducated about names and their history. Some people when they do find out names like Madison, Addison, & Riley were originally masculine names they find it hard to believe and picture because they have met or seen (on TV) so many girls with these names(so it sounds feminine to them), but why not just not use them then and pick something that was originally feminine? This is where I stop understanding and get frustrated, when people knew all along they were originally only masculine names and then they decide to name their daughter "Riley" because they want her to be strong & independent, which doesn't work because a name does not make a person who they are.

Like you said why is it ok to name a girl Addison but not a boy Charlotte?? I mean he could have the nickname "Charlie", it's mostly because IMO men are taught to be strong and the furthest thing from feminine but it's actually encouraged for a female to be strong. Boy names are more traditional and are making less progress than girl names.

So at the end of the day it's really all about tradition (boys) & breaking tradition (girls).

♥ {ag}

I'm still amazed at how many people seem to think Addison sounds feminine. It's one of the harshest sounding names I can think of, and it ends in SON! It's the complete opposite of pretty and elegant.

I think unisex names fit into the wider trend that it's okay for a girl to be masculine, but not okay for a boy to be feminine. Femininity is seen as inferior to masculinity. Some people think that boys' names on girls sound "strong", but why can't a name be both strong and feminine? Every time a girl is given a boys' name, we lose some of the female history that comes with classic female names.

If it worked both ways, I wouldn't even mind unisex names. It's just that, at the moment, they carry the idea that being feminine isn't good enough.

It's definitely the fact that girls are given the opportunity of the variety since they're not typically viewed as strong or protective, whereas males are supposed to be viewed as leaders and providers, so calling them 'Elizabeth' wouldn't be suitable since it's most often used on a "frail and weak" woman. Lame. When the woman has the male name however, it makes them seem strong and independent since it's used on our "powerful and courageous" men.

Doesn't much matter to me. I just have my opinion on a name whether it's unisex or not, although I take these aspects into consideration. Cuz honestly, how much crap would you give the guy in class named Elizabeth?

You can call a boy Elizabeth if you want. I really don't care. It's just not what I would do.

I have no bone of contention with unisex names either way.

EDIT: I fail to see how knowing the meaning of a name like Addison changes how it SOUNDS. That's not even logical....

And no, I have no unisex names on my list. So I'm not trying to back myself up. I just think everyone should let parents name their kids in peace. It's not like they named their baby Table Superior or something ridiculous.

I honestly didn't know those were traditionally boy names. All of the people I know with the names Madison, Addison, Riley are girls. I do know one boy named Riley though.

Those names sound more feminine than masculine. I would feel really bad for any boy named Addison.

I think that boys should have distinctly masculine names, they will probably get picked on for having a name like Elizabeth.

I still wouldn't make a boy go to school with the name Elizabeth or Charlotte.

Probably for the same reason most people think it's okay for a woman to wear pants but not for a guy to wear a dress. This attitude comes from the notion that somehow female "isn't as good" as male. Which is, of course, hogwash, but I still wouldn't make a boy go to school with the name Elizabeth or Charlotte.

I think it's okay because I have the choice to name my child whatever I want.

I, personally, I'm never stick with tradition. I always want to be different but tasteful. And just because it's tradition doesn't mean it's right. Tradition can be broken and changed. I'm not aware of baby name law book that says "You're having a girl, so they can only be named this, this, and this".

And really, Addison, Madison, Riley, Avery sound WAY MORE feminine to me and to a lot of people. I would feel sorry for a guy named Madison or even Riley.

If someone wants to name their son Astrid, Jensen, or whatever. Go right ahead. It's a free country.

Also, if I child is SO against their birth given name, they can change it. Amazing how that works.

Unisex names DON'T sound good on girls though. Only people who know nothing of the meaning or origin of the name would think so.

AddiSON "son of Adam"

madiSON "son of Maud(e)"

Avery "form of Alfred or Alberich"

Riley "from Reilly; Irish surname." ALL surname names are traditionally masculine.

Taylor "tailor" Girls CANNOT be tailors. They are seamstresses.

Ryan "little king" KING, not queen.

Avery is my SO's middle name, Taylor was my grandfather's mn and it is my nephew's mn.

EDIT: That was mostly a reply to above, not the question. I couldn't answer the question because I don't like unisex names, unless they're on the correct gender. Why? Because that's the gender they belong on.