KellyXY
- Name
Kelly
- About Me
No info yet
- My Favorite Names
-
- My Recent Blog Comments
Baby Name Wizard Store
Celebrate with personalized baby name products! Custom birth announcements, invitations, bibs, onesies & more.
Start Shopping Kelly
No info yet
Celebrate with personalized baby name products! Custom birth announcements, invitations, bibs, onesies & more.
Start Shopping© 2008-2012 Generation Grownup, LLC
Your use of this site indicates your agreement to be bound by its Terms of Use.
I've pointed out the same thing before; currently fashionable unisex names that are holding down more even gender ratios than what was typical in the past, and some of those now in the dated category for girls (mine is an example) getting closer in usage again by default as they fall on the charts for girls.
AJ: That's a good thought - many of the unisex names I'm referring to are indeed surnames as well, and in many cases may represent a family or other tradition. The kinds of crossovers that probably fare better in the liberal areas are those with a more "international" feel when used on boys like Alexis and Sasha (as opposed to surnames like Ashley or Kelly, nicknames like Jamie or Sam, place names like Austin or Shannon, or nature/word names like River or Rowan). In fact, most of the styles I mentioned in the parenthesis are more common in the "red" states than in the "blue" ones (the latter tend to go for more "established" names when looking for something different, and that's where styles like the pan-European and saint's names come in).
Laura Wattenberg: I tried what you described awhile back with each states' individual data (comparing them to the national data the same way I did with the England/Wales data by multiplying the smaller set by the population ratio), and as it turns out the "conformity curve" in many cases isn't that much different than when compared to the nationwide stats. (What you get to make up the regional differences are different names making up the top of the lists.) I do see two clusters that tend to be more conformist than the rest of America: the Hispanic set (although that's hard to tell from the numbers, I do think that Hispanics tend to draw from a smaller name pool than the mainstream American culture, especially for boys; if you look at the completely separate stats for Puerto Rico you can see that) and the Northeastern cluster (I noticed from the numbers that they're the most conformist of the major regions, and being a guy with a unisex name from some computations of which I have a spreadsheet on I discovered they're also in general the most unisex-name-phobic for boys of the American regions*).
*As many who grew up in the more "conservative" parts of the country can attest to, ironically those regions are the ones most open to unisex names - both ways. The more "sexually liberated Left Coast" places like California come out pretty much neutral in this regard.
Andre: On the other hand in the U.S. you have lots of other surname-names (which is a decidedly American trend) like Landon and Mason to make up the difference.
Numerically, based on some computations I made last year based on both countries' 2010 stats, in terms of the percentage of babies given a top name the UK is quite a bit more conformist than the US (with the boys having an even greater difference than the girls between the countries). Although that may mean some of the classics rank higher in America by default, it does show that the typical American's name pool is larger than the typical Brit's. The post is at the link below:
http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2011/08/brits-are-more-likely-to-use-top-name.html
To put it another way, a greater percentage of British boys got the #10 name over there (James) than American boys got the #1 name (Jacob), and the equal percentage to the #1 American girl's name for the year in the stats I used (Isabella) would fall somewhere in the #5-#10 range on the British girl's list. Or to put it yet another way the British "conformity curve" equals about what the American one was in the mid-1990s.
Re: another Laura: I have the same issue (last name ending in "n"). However, I think that "n" overall tends to be one of the more manageable letters if they end in the same sound; that could be because -n is also a common ending letter for last names with all the -son patronymics out there, so we're more used to it. (In places like Scandinavia where such last names are even more common ruling out any -n ending first names would severely limit many namers).
Re: You Can't Call It "It"!: On the expert NameVoyager I did the same thing for girls, and like the boys there is an ending letter that now dominates. Can you guess what it is? Hint: All of the top 5 girl's names from 2011 end in that letter.
I'm not saying that all Spanish-speakers in America are recent immigrants, but rather a drop in the numbers that are migrants is enough to cause the noticeable falls mentioned. It's like the names Wattenberg mentioned are going out of fashion; there are still plenty of baby Tylers and Alexises, but since they're past their prime the numbers have dropped enough to show up on this list.
Speaking of eras going in and out of style, with the '90s-type names going out (and as Wattenberg said the subject of a new section in the next edition of BNW), I'm noticing that as the Victorian-era revivals are being played out a revived interest blooming in names from roughly the 1920s-'30s era (and the fustiest cohort of names shifting from those to the Mid-Century group). For example I've seen Gloria and Helen on celebrity babies, and Dorothy re-appeared in the top 1,000 this year. I think over the next few years there may be a growing interest in what Wattenberg calls the "Solid Citizens" genre (and the popularity of Mad Men may also be giving it a boost).
Some more thoughts on the drop in Hispanic names: Normally many of us NEs don't like to discuss politics, but this is one area where the political climate has an effect on a general name cluster (a politician may affect his/her name individually, but not as a whole trend). If we start tightening our borders and/or deporting illegals that will probably drop the Hispanic name count further. What will probably be interesting is if we ever get around to passing a constitutional amendment doing away with automatic citizenship for being born on U.S. soil; I'm placing my bets that most of the Hispanic names will drop A LOT in the year or two (depending on when in the year the amendment takes effect) timeframe when it's implemented.
My guess with the Hispanic names is that with the economic situation fewer Hispanics are coming over into the country (with less of a job incentive), and thus naturally fewer of them are giving birth in the U.S.
I think you could go either way. Maybe if you go with a common first name go for a more unusual middle name so there is something that will likely provide some way to differentiate between the many others with the same first and last name?
This is also a case where I'd go against the usual sentiment and be more likely to use a more common name for a girl than a boy for two reasons: Unlike a boy who will likely have the same full name his whole life, when a girl marries there's a good chance her last name will change (which unless her married name is also common will render the issue moot at that point). Also, with some exceptions, the most popular boy's names are more common than the most popular girl's names (this is especially true for the "traditional" names that don't change much in popularity over time), and thus for example an Emily Smith is less likely to run into mix-ups than a Michael Smith (especially when all age groups are taken into account).
With the timing of this American vs. British name discussion, I decided to go ahead and post at my blog another find I made when comparing the stats: The "conformity curve" that we've discussed, the percentage of babies given a top name, which has flattened considerably in recent years in the U.S. has not flattened as much in the U.K. In other words, British parents are more likely to use a top name than American parents; this is particularly the case with boys, in which the differences are larger than they are on the girl's side. http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2011/08/brits-are-more-likely-to-use-top-name.html
On the subject of why it surprises many that nickname-names are more common in the U.K. than the U.S., I think the answer is changing social forces and is cyclical. If you look at the American stats over time, you'll see that nickname-names were common in the 1880s-1890s, fell out of favor in the 1900s, revived in the 1930s and remained up through the 1970s, and has been low in recent years. If the pattern follows through, as this decade goes on we'll see a revival of less formal names on the birth certificate (as Wattenberg described in a 2009 blog post here: http://www.babynamewizard.com/archives/2009/4/recession-era-baby-naming-part-2). At my blog post whose URL is at the bottom of this paragraph, I noticed that name formality decreases during what historians Strauss and Howe call "Crisis" periods (e.g. the present post-recession era, and before that the Depression/WWII era, and before that the Civil War era), is at its lowest in the post-Crisis period (e.g. the 1950s), increases during what they call "Awakening" eras (e.g. the movements of the '60s and '70s), and is at its highest in the pre-Crisis periods (e.g. the recent past, which is why the recent lists have been so void of them). Already when comparing the 2007 (before the crash) and 2010 lists many of the names that may be too short/informal for some (e.g. Ellie, Finn) have increased in popularity. http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-on-nicknames-vs-formal-names.html In a follow-up blog post, I posted a theory on how it seems like Britain follows a similar but opposite cycle to America: http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2011/05/nicknames-vs-formal-names-part-3.html In addition, a comment on one of my blog posts mentioned that in the U.K. the nickname fad is more common among the lower classes, with the upper classes still more likely to opt for the full name (remember over there the class structure is less flexible than in America).
Max: You're not the only guy here; I'm one (and I've posted here for quite awhile). Yes, my name is Kelly and I'm male (which is why I put the "XY" at the end of my name since there many be another "Kelly" here).
Re: Reuben - In a blog post last year Wattenberg described how this is one of those rare Biblical names that has had more success in Europe than America (with most Biblical names it's the other way around): http://www.babynamewizard.com/archives/2010/2/the-view-from-abroad-a-look-back-at-the-future-part-2 While looking back at that post, I decided to see how well those "European gentlemen" names she mentioned continue to fare in America: Three of the five (Louis, Oliver, and Simon) have increased over the past two years while two (Hugo and Philip) went down. I think both of the fallers have reasons for falling: Hugo has the unfashionable "long U" sound (like Beulah and Hubert) and Philip like Wattenberg mentioned needs more time to come around under the "four generation rule" to have a decent chance at success. I also took a look at three other names that could fall in this category that I like (Felix, Leo, and Sebastian); all three have increased in popularity. As I mentioned in the blog post linked to in post #26 of this discussion, I predict an overall shift over the next decade or so to less trendy and more classic names. In the "Old Testament vs. European-style" name debate, I think both categories in general (individual names of course will vary) will have success with the rising generation of namers (both providing the "classic but not overused" flavor that is becoming popular).
Now that I've got my blog back open to everyone, here's my post on my thoughts with regards to the changing patterns with naming boys vs. naming girls (and some predictions on upcoming trends): http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2011/05/changing-baby-name-trends-from-2010.html
Re: The comments on how the gap between greater usage of popular names on boys vs. girls has narrowed or even reversed. I ran the math to see what percentage of babies received a top 10 name for the past three years, and here's the results: 2010: 8.37% of boys, 8.04% of girls 2009: 8.59% of boys, 7.85% of girls 2008: 8.84% of boys, 7.74% of girls As you can tell, the percentage continues to go down for boys but is going up for girls (remember the overall trend in recent years has been downward). Another sign of the quest for more creative names leveling off for girls but continuing for boys is that in 2010 there were two "modern" names in the boy's top 10 (Jayden and Aiden) but only one in the girl's (Madison, and that one is on the downhill slope now). Ten years earlier in 2000, the boys had only one in their top 10 (Tyler) while the girls had four (Madison, Ashley, Alexis, and Taylor). (I define "modern" as names which until recently have not had any significant history of usage as first names on the applicable gender; that's why for the 2000 list I consider Alexis "modern" but not Samantha, since the latter does have some usage prior to the 20th century and the former was considered a boy's name prior to modern times.) Yet another sign is if you take a look at the updated NameVoyager without being narrowed down to a name or even a letter (but by gender) there continues to be an increase in the percentage of boys given a name less common than #1,000 (following the trend of recent years) but for girls between 2009 and 2010 that graph remained essentially flat as far as my eye could tell (it may go slightly one way or the other). In the upcoming days (once I get my personal blog split up so some political-natured posts are not on the same blog as other discussions, like those about names) I will likely be posting about some insights on these and similar changing patterns.
Andre: I think some of the "older" unisex names can have a chance at coming back, particularly as they become dated for girls but don't have the same time-stamp for boys. Ones like Ashley and Madison which dominated the top of the girl list for more than a decade while being very low or off of the boy's list at the same time are probably a lost cause, but names like Kelly and Robin which still ranked for boys albeit lower when they were popular for girls may still be revivable. Although names like those probably won't experience any great popularity either way until the generation they're most strongly associated with passes away (in accordance with the "100-year" or "four-generation" rule), some of them may steer back to the boys by attrition (falling in popularity for both genders but less so for boys), a future influence pulling the ranking for boys up a bit, or a combination of both. If you look at the extended SSA list and run the math (computing the ratio of girl vs. boy usage) on some of the common Boomer/Gen-X/Gen-Y unisex names during their heyday vs. now you'll see the attrition effect with some of them. In addition, when a name is rare among the child's peers altogether it is less likely that he'll have the issue with sharing his name with a girl in class, etc. (in contrast to the ones that are currently popular). ETA: I noticed that editing my post re-set the time stamp, causing it to appear like it's out of order.
phoebesmom: I don't know if that's true or not (at least not as far as anything I've heard). Here's a little-known fact about birth certificates in the U.S.: In many of the cases where the name is changed for a reason other than marriage/partnership (or the breakup thereof) in most states you can request an amended birth certificate or an attachment added to it (depending on the state) acknowledging the name change (which reduces the hassle when applying for passports, etc. like you mentioned), which is usually true even if the name is changed as an adult. This fact is not widely known outside of those who do adoptions or the transgender community (those in the latter group obviously want to avoid dealing with their old name as much as possible).
Christiana - At least in my state, that's not quite true that the birth certificate asks for the mother's "birth" name; it asks for the mother's "maiden" name. The distinction is that if her name is legally changed outside of marriage (or divorce), that does change her "maiden" name (for instance if she was adopted, took her stepfather's last name, or if her parents or herself legally changed the first name prior to marriage). I thought I would mention this because the woman who runs the name site http://appellationmountain.net legally changed her middle name to one of her choosing, and there was confusion as to what should go on her daughter's birth certificate (turns out her legal name change did affect what was to be put down). Probably why they don't want to have the mother put her married name in is because in most cases it would be the same as the father's last name, and her maiden name would give more identifiable details (which would not be the case for a name legally changed for other reasons).