Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NoNameClever t1_izdpe74 wrote

So, looking at the graph as a whole the lower right is considerably more busy than the top-left. One interpretation is it appears parents in the US are much more willing to give traditionally "male names" to girls. That empty top-left is interesting too. You may argue that almost no one is giving boys a traditionally "female name" on either side of the pond. Obviously other interpretations are possible too!

4

Retrospectrenet t1_izdqh6p wrote

Surnames for girls are still popular in the US whereas in the UK they've declined since the 1980s. A good chunk of those bottom half names are surnames, which are still semi popular for boys only in the UK.

2

NiceShotMan t1_ize5h8l wrote

Yes this is the most striking conclusion I drew from the graph as well. Essentially,

  1. Americans are sometimes giving their daughters traditionally male names
  2. British people are not
  3. Nobody is giving their sons traditionally female names
2

brieflyamicus t1_izey9cj wrote

It's historically true that names almost always pass from being "boy names" to unisex to "girl names", with almost no names going in the other direction. That process is completed with Ashley, it's mostly happened to Leslie and Lindsey, and it's ongoing with Riley, Jordan, etc.

I think the graph implies that this process happens in the US and UK at different moments: Americans start giving boys' names to girls, and only later do Brits do the same. Possibly, Americans are very high-profile in media, so they have disproportionate influence on international trends?

1