- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Baby Names
austenreader85
member
Something I just realized about popularity
austenreader85
member
in Baby Names
well, my feelings on popularity.
100 years ago when there were less name options a great name like Margaret would have been much more popular. Did it make it an awful name? No. Would it make me reconsider just because there would have been 4 others in the class? No. Especially because they came up with all sorts of nicknames. So, why do I worry when Willliam is our top choice for hypothetical DS #2? Sure, William is popular but it doesn't mean is bad.
But it's when it's on the same list as Jayden, Addison and Madison. It makes me wonder if those names are popular and I think they're gross, then maybe my choice which is also popular is gross and I just don't know it yet. So, really it's less about the fact that I'd mind him being multiple in his class and really about just trying to not pick a horrible name. It's sad that popular now tends to mean an overused or gross name, it used to mean that it was a great name.
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Something I just realized about popularity
It's her opinion. You'll be ok.
And Madison is pretty damn old too, though it hasn't always been used as a first name or for a girl. But the name itself is not "new."
I don't get names being "gross." I have seen that reax a lot on this board and it puzzles me.
That said, I get not wanting to give your kid a bad name. I don't see how William could ever be a bad name though.
FTR Madison, William, Theodore are all NMS.
A hundred years ago there weren't less name options, people had a different perspective on individuality and society. People (especially immigrants) strove to use more popular, "American" names.
Our contemporary perspective on individualism has driven the explosion of name variety (that and the new notion of immigrants---and natural-born citizens, too---to embrace their heritage, rather than try to "blend in").
"Popular" today now has a negative connotation; it means "indistinguishable" and "unorginal." But 100 years ago it meant "belonging" and "equal to everyone else."
There were less options. I'd doubt we'd find 10 girls named Addison back then (or even 1). It wasn't an "option."
But I guess what I really meant was that each name had a greater percentage of births. So there were literally more people sharing the top 10 names than now. And also, the top 10 names barely fluctuated over a decade, unlike now.
This! Huge difference between trendy and popular. Not a fan of old kind of plain names though, which is how I see William. Really hate Jayden and the like more so though... Trendy is far worse than just popular.
Anyhow, to each her own.
Agreed.
When a large amount of people do something at the same time, it's a trend. But when a trend is repeated enough times over a long enough time span, it eventually becomes the standard, and the term classic is basically defined as following an established set of standards, so unless the _ayden, McK____, extraneous "Y" and other current trends die out, these will become/ are becoming new standards,and could be the future "classics". And technically, all the "old lady" names, which had previously died out, but are being brought back into circulation, by more and more people are currently, technically a "trend". And for the matter, some of these girls with the "trendy old lady" names, will become strippers, and if enough of them share the same names, those currently "respectable" names could eventually become "stripper names".
So eventually:
Nevaeh will be what Elizabeth is now
Jayden, Braylon, and Caedan will be the new William, George, and Edward
Thelma, Louise, and Mable will take over the poles from Destiny, Candie, and Sparkles, who are now doctors, lawyers, and physicists.
You learn quick around here to not take offense to anything said on the name board, everyone has a different opinion.
Where are you getting this information? And by that I don't mean about Addison, I mean about less choices? What evidence backs this up? Because a quick rundown of the SSA baby names shows this:
In 2010 in the top 50 names, there are various spellings of the same name. For example:
On the 1880 list, there are no names repeated that are simply spelled differently.
So in one light, I guess we have "more choices" because the general population likes to make names like Jackson "unique" by turning it into Jaxon, Jaxxson, Jacksen, Jacksyn, etc. But ultimately, it still sounds like Jackson, no? So it would appear, based off this random example, that I would have had more individual choices for my daughter that aren't repeated names with different spellings if I looked at the 1880s list of the top 50 names than I would have in the 2010 top 50 girl names.
I think the OP is talking about the percentage of births option on the SSA's site. Various spellings are not what she's talking about.
BWaahaaaaaaaa
I agree that the "old lady" name resurgence is a trend, even if they are "classic" names. And of course even a Mildred can become a stripper.
However, I don't agree that Nevaeh = Elizabeth. Elizabeth has been popular for many, many, many years. I don't foresee Nevaeh having the same staying power. Same with Jayden and William.
And this may be flameworthy, but I'll say it: Destiny, Sparkles, and Nevaeh tend to be given to children in lower-SES families. Children in lower-SES families don't tend to grow up to be physicists or doctors. Of course there may be some; there are always exceptions! But I think it's unlikely that when we're old retirees that many of our physicians are going to be named Nevaeh or Destiny. Sure, these names will be very common among adults and eventually we may not bat an eye at an adult Kennadi or Rylee. But I think it's less likely that many of these Kennadis or Rylees are going to be doctors, lawyers, and physicists. JMO.
When Nevaeh becomes the new Elizabeth, I will weep.
"A new baby is like the beginning of all things--wonder, hope, a dream of possibilities."
Interesting in what direction this post went!
I did not mean to offend with my opinion of the names I gave an example of. I was merely trying to stick to the top 10, there are loads mroe that I also dislike. BTW, gross is actually a nicer adjective than some ladies have on here about those same names, and you probably wouldn't want to read the ones we have for some others out there.
By "less name options" I mean two things. One, that there have been several names that are now common that did not exist in 1910 or 1810. I'd say they're "made up" or "invented" but I don't really want to get on that tangent. I also mean that more people considered the top 20 names or so (just pulling a number). John and Mary were the number one names for 1910 (just to line up with 100 years from the most recent year the SSA has data published). They each had about 5.5% of the births of that year. Jacob and Isabella, top for 2010, only had 1% of the births share those names. So, clearly people were using less names. I suppose that doesn't mean there literally were that many less options (I still think there were, but I'll agree with you that it's hard to measure that and I don't have a resource to back me up). I realize there's a more concise way to state all that but I'm dealing with strep and a UTI right now, so it escapes me.
Mary was also in the top ten from 1880 (earliest date available) to 1971. Isabella didn't rank between 1948 and 1990, was 45 in 2000 and number 1 in 2009. Sure, Isabella existed before then. Even my beloved Jane Austen had a character named Isabella, but it wasn't frequently used. Although we don't have data I think we all know that Mary was quite popular long before 1880.
Elizabeth was in the top 10 from 1880 (again, first year data is available) until in 1923 with the lowest ranking of 26 in 1948 and a reemergence in the top 10 in 1980, where it's been except for 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2009 at the 11th spot and 2010 at number 12. It's been consistently popular for even longer than Mary on our SSA list, which has now slipped below the 100 spot. And again, Elizabeth has a much longer history as name before 1880.
Nevaeh literally came out of nowhere in 2000 at the 266 spot. In 2010 it was 25.
Nevaeh could never be an Elizabeth. It doesn't mean Nevaeh can't end up as a lawyer or that there aren't plenty of Elizabeth's that are strippers. Just that it would take hundreds of years for it to become such a classic. And if that would ever happen I would be rolling over in my grave shouting curses to the younger generations for the name atrocities they've committed.
Touche (can't do the accent mark because I'm too lazy to learn). I never said children with those names (Destiny, Neveah, and Sparkles) are less likely to be teachers or educated in general. Also, pointing out a small syntax error on an informal internet forum seems like a really petty way of proving your point. This whole post got way off topic.
The access to research and new names was limited before the internet and mass publications, but I do not think that you had fewer options in names. You may not have been exposed to as many, or went with meaningful family names (like Jr.) to carry on tradition...But, for example, my husband and my family tree has wildly different names and the only names commonly repeated is Carmen and Thomas as middle names. From 1900 to today, there are very few repeated names as first names in our families which is quite a feat! People still did like their children to not be 1 of 10 williams in their own family and got creative. Those who think last names as fist names are a new creation are crazy, because people have been doing it for a hundred years! I guarantee you that something like 80% of the names used today were being used then...
Popularity & trends are not that black and white, namely because our population has grown so much that the numbers get adjusted. If you really look at the top 100, the top 10 is not so popular that you have 5 children in a class named Isabella. There are a lot of factors to that. I nanny a Bella, and she is the only Bella she has ever come across in 7 years where she lives.
FYI, my good friend in high school used to be an exotic dancer, and the names of the girls she worked with were Kristen, Meredith, Robyn, Janice, Sarah, and Emily. You people do realize that Sparkle and Destiny are usually stage names? A name does not dictate what career path you'll take.
Oh, come on...that was funny! To me, at least...
And I completly agree that there were fewer names out there years ago. Just look at the percentage of the population the top 10 names made up in 1950 vs 2011.
~Started TTC 2/09. BFP #1 11/09. EDD 8/7/10. DS born 8/7/10.~
~Surprise BFP #2 5/11 while still BF'ing. Natural M/C @ 7w3d.~
~BFP #3 8/11. EDD 4/24/12. Heavy bleeding episodes from a lost twin. DD born 4/14/12.~
~Started TTC 2/13. BFP #4 3/13. EDD 11/8/13. Hoping for smooth sailing!~