Interesting.

[abandoneddream.livejournal.com]

While browsing the 1880 list on the US Social Security baby names website, I was interested to see so many common female names on the male list. Some of them were a bit expected; others, especially those found in the Bible, surprised me. I also skimmed the female list and found a few amusing items.



Boys, 1880
Rank is listed next to name.

Pearl- 208
Mary- 284
Lynn- 329
Pink- 366
Anna- 456
Florence- 559
Elizabeth- 577
Emma- 584
Lacy- 625
June- 634
Margaret- 637
Minnie- 646
Bertha- 656
Ivy- 662
Clara- 681
Vivian- 690
Annie- 701
Connie- 722
Ida- 723
Ivory- 743
Allison- 761
Bessie- 800
Rose- 803
Louise- 851
Alice- 854
Edith- 864
Grace- 865
Cora- 866
Ruby- 884
Bonnie- 885
Edna- 921
Julia- 950
Ella- 967
Sarah- 968
Courtney- 979


Girls, 1880
Rank is listed next to name.

George- 350
James- 399
Clyde- 431
Charles- 441
Eddie- 447
Frank- 518
Henry- 552
Joe- 583
Joseph- 672
Fred- 677
Harry- 712
Thomas- 719
Charlie- 731
Walter- 829
Albert- 922
Glenn- 962

Comments

[sarahrose.livejournal.com]

Wow, a few surprised me for the boys:

Pink
Lucy
Lacy
Margaret
Minnie
Rose
Sarah

Actually, most of them surprised me.


Some of the girls' ones, too. Frank? Walter? Wtf. lol

[tinylittlestars.livejournal.com]

Are you sure you didn't mix these up? LoLz

[heure-actuelle.livejournal.com]

that's crazy...

i mean i know a lot of today's typically female names were originally male names but...it's still crazy to think of Rose, Pink, and Pearl as males! hah

[imyourrapunzel.livejournal.com]

I've seen those and wondered about it before too! Who would name their child Pink?? I wouldn't even name a girl that. Very odd I wonder if it's some sort of mistake?

[abandoneddream.livejournal.com]

That's what I was thinking... but these names were used multiple times. Pink, for instance, was used 223 times.

I don't know. Maybe it has to do with cases where babies were separated from their parents after birth? Maybe they thought they had a girl but couldn't double check because baby had been taken away to the nursery? Maybe somebody was just being cruel?

[t0xicmadness.livejournal.com]

I just went to the website, and what you show is pretty much opposite of what they show.

[abandoneddream.livejournal.com]

Hmm.. Are you sure you checked the 1880 list (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames/decades/names1880s.html)?

[t0xicmadness.livejournal.com]

No, I checked 1899 or something, beause I'm an idiot. Those names dont look as girly when they're mixed in with all of the guys names...
And just because I'm immature, WHO would do THIS to their child?

835 Oral

[turabiannights.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing it's because it was 1899, and people were probably thinking more of the Swiss-German derivative of Aurelius than of a sex act.

[t0xicmadness.livejournal.com]

Probably, but that doesnt make it any less funny to me.

[mrsduryee.livejournal.com]

Tons of Mormons names Oral. And the fundamentalist Christian and Univerity founder, Oral Roberts.

[t0xicmadness.livejournal.com]

Thats lovely. I've never heard of that before.

[mrsduryee.livejournal.com]

LOL. There is a Mormon president with the name I think.

Tangent--I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your icon. hehe. It looks so happy!

[t0xicmadness.livejournal.com]

He might look sweet and innocent, but stingrays arent taking shit anymore. He'll stab you.

[mrsduryee.livejournal.com]

Hahaha!

[secret-x-stars.livejournal.com]

wasn't there some explanation concerning the checking off of 'male' and 'female' boxes for babies that explains some of the discrepancy in the names? Or something?

...Or did I totally make that up? lmao

[abandoneddream.livejournal.com]

Seems possible. I haven't heard that explanation.

[ouronlylight.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I seem to remember hearing something like that. I don't remember what it was, but I do remember hearing an explanation along those lines.

[turabiannights.livejournal.com]

I believe a lot of the discrepancy is due to clerical error and use of parental names in place of children's names. It's true that Pearl was quite common on men at the turn of the century, and Vivian was actually a male name before it was a female name... but a lot of the male Alices, Margarets and Berthas are probably results of the mothers being Alices, Margarets, and Berthas. These early name records were dependent entirely upon censuses, and early censuses often list entire families under one name - e.g. father Edward, mother Edward, three daughters named Edward, etc. It's far more likely, to my mind, that Mary's baby boy would be recorded as "Mary" than that a woman would actually name a boy Mary... especially given the number of female Marys at the time who were likely having kids! (Use of Mary on a male wouldn't be unheard of in a strongly Catholic family, though it would almost assuredly be used as a middle name, if at all). I'm actually not as surprised about the girls names, as Freddie, Charlie, and Harry were all commonly used as nicknames for longer female names like Frederica, Charlotte, or Harriet, etc., and nicknames-as-full-names was HUGE at the turn of the century. Those were probably actually used on girls. I'd be willing to bet that some of the masculine names on the lower end of the scale - Walter and Albert especially - were census problem names. The Victorians were fond enough of monstrosities like Albertine and Walteretta that out-and-out using Walter or Albert seems sort of unlikely on a grand scale.

That said, Pearl, Lynn, Pink, June, Vivian, Connie (a common enough nickname for Conrad etc.), Ivory, and Courtney do not really surprise me as male Victorian names. Heck, Courtney and Vivian were male names before they were female names. Pink is actually a botanical name, much like Rowan today; also, pink wasn't so irrevocably linked to femininity a hundred years ago as it is now, so I don't think it would have caused much of a problem for a guy.

[abandoneddream.livejournal.com]

Very interesting! Thanks for the explanation! :)

[mrsduryee.livejournal.com]

Great info! Thanks!

[anapology.livejournal.com]

I remember posting on this ages ago...it's very odd!
Uncle Elizabeth & Aunty Albert... doesnt sound quite right!

[plasmic-moth.livejournal.com]

I just looked on the site, and haven't found that. 1880-1900. nowhere does it have that. I'm just a touch confused. are you as well?