New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Why do mid-20th century name category tend to not get a many fan?
I think mid-20th century name categories tend not to get as much love as other name categories.
Replies
Because they are the names of many of us poster's parents' generation. Mom and dad names feel too dated to give a baby.
Thank you.
They're not lovably vintage yet, they're boomer names. I say this as someone who has two nieces with boomer names. Sometimes, when I tell people what their names are, I get negative responses, like, "Why would their parents give them THOSE names?", like they are awful (they are objectively not).
This message was edited 5/12/2024, 8:41 AM
Thank you.
I think once a name becomes severely dated, people not only consider it unfashionable, but forget to look for any beauty in it. Many mid-century names don't exactly fit the beauty standards of today, and because people are so used to hearing them, they brush them off without looking for their good qualities. A lot of names that might come as acquired tastes are popular today, but because they're "new and refreshing", people appreciate them and notice their best features. Personally, I found a lot of mid-century names ugly, but when I forgot how dated they were, I actually liked them. Some of my favourite mid-century names are Barbara, Phyllis, Beverly, Lois, Rita, Anita, Darla, Dianne, Carol, Judith, and Shirley.
60-70 years from now, Harper, Chloe, Evelyn, Gianna, Luna, Naomi, Kaylee, Taylor, Avery, Leilani, Kennedy, Madison, Addison, Brooklyn, Skylar, Parker, Eleanor, ect. may well be considered old lady-ish and dreadfully ugly.
60-70 years from now, Harper, Chloe, Evelyn, Gianna, Luna, Naomi, Kaylee, Taylor, Avery, Leilani, Kennedy, Madison, Addison, Brooklyn, Skylar, Parker, Eleanor, ect. may well be considered old lady-ish and dreadfully ugly.
This message was edited 5/12/2024, 7:07 AM
I like Dianna and Darla. Kennedy is no longer common for males, so it could very well get outdated for girls one day. I always thought Eleanor and Evelyn sounded older, but I will still like them if they drop from the charts. I like most of the other names, but they are a part of a trend that will eventually die down. I can totally see them becoming "old lady" names.
I like Darla and Judith.
Thank you.
A lot of Boomer names I really don’t like because of the sound and they feel dated. However, I like Jennifer, Amanda, Jessica, Ashley, etc. They’re parent names for me. My peers have names like Emma, William _Aiden, Isabella, Jacob, Zoe, etc. So mid 20th century names are the names of grandparents. Honestly, for me, I just find a lot of them ugly. My grade does have a Denise and Patricia.
Thank you.
It's just not their time yet. Fashion follows a cycle. I think Anneza is right in that midcentury names are too familiar in an unglamorous way to some people. Many people on the boards (and elsewhere) just can't appreciate the characteristics of midcentury names yet. But in time, perhaps they will. I used to hate many midcentury names, I thought they were so boring and inherently unlikeable. But after 20 years of the current trends, they are starting to feel downright refreshing.
I am starting to appreciate midcentury names a lot more now too.
Thank you. So, as time passes, the evaluation of some mid-20th century names will increase.
Yes, I think it's inevitable! I've heard a few theories about how long it takes - 50 years, 80 years, 100 years, etc.
For the female names at least, they were pretty ugly. Most mid-century female names barely sound feminine.
Thank you.
I suspect - can't prove it - that most of the posters here are younger than mid-century; they would have encountered mid-century people as authority figures, like teachers, policemen, stern shop assistants, grumpy old aunts and uncles ... and this would have affected their opinions about the names which are typical of that generation. So, it's probably not the names per se that get rejected: it's the bearers of those names.
Thank you.