Times they are a changin'
Oct. 12th, 2007 08:23 pmHere is a funny little story. I was talking to my mom about the desire these days to name your child something unique that will set your child apart. She said that when she was growing up, it just wasn't so. (This was 50s-60s) She said that there were tons of Mikes and Kathys, but it really didn't matter. Maybe it was a challenge for the teacher, but it was actually how kids formed friendships sometimes - like all the Susans would be friends. My mom said that she always felt left out because no one else had her name. Her closest friend in school was the only other girl with an unusual name.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-13 04:43 am (UTC)There are not enough Stephanies and Nicks and Brittanies anymore. There are too many Madisons and other crap names.
There are plenty of beautiful, classic and LEGIT names that are perfectly "unique". A Mary would be the only one in her class these days, ditto (most likely) for Stephanie or Brittany. Nicholas is a lovely name and popularity doesn't ruin a classic and good name.
How sad, isn't it? It's quite depressing what the naming world is coming to.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-13 04:48 am (UTC)As an aside, I think Stephanie was on the top ten SSA list last year - I want to say it was #10. I don't know where any of those Stephanies are though - I've never met a baby or toddler with that name!
no subject
Date: 2007-10-13 04:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-13 04:57 am (UTC)Haha!
Date: 2007-10-13 05:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-13 04:56 am (UTC)I just like names that people will actually stop and say "WOW. I love your name; it's beautiful and unique." Stephanie and Brittany and Nicholas are too ordinary for my tastes.
Though I admit I like Mary. It's pretty, used on the right girl. John, too, but the kid must have one heck of a last name. I know a Ben Smith, so you see my issue with traditional names. *nods*
no subject
Date: 2007-10-13 02:02 pm (UTC)She'd rather be an Ashley.