genme ([info]genme) wrote,
@ 2006-05-15 12:14:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
There was a news story yesterday about popular baby names. For example, Emily is once again the most popular name for girls.

However, the most popular names are not as popular as they used to be. That is, the most popular names account for a smaller percentage of births. Emily accounted for 1.2% of girls in 2005; Jessica (the top name for 1995) was 1.5% in 1995; and Jessica (again #1) was 2.6% in 1985. Jennifer, #1 in 1975, was the name of 3.7% of girls born that year. In the early years of the 20th century, more than 5% of girls were named Mary (and 6% of boys were named John). So over time the numbers have gone downward as more parents choose less common names for their kids. The trend holds true if you add up the percentages for the top ten as well.

You can play around with the data yourself on the SSA website:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/

As usual, I'm interested in the psychological/sociological underpinings that explain this trend. People are now not as willing to give their children common names. Instead, they want their child to have a unique name. It used to be a good thing to have a common, popular name, in order to fit in. Having a weird name would get you made fun of, or beat up on the playground. Now it's considered better to stand out as an individual and be "unique." Parents will say, "I've never heard of anyone named XXXX," and proceed to name their child that. Previous generations were much less willing to make up names, and this SSA data show that the trend reaches beyond Hollywood celebs.

It's yet another indication that American culture has moved steadily toward individualism and uniqueness.

(Post a new comment)

My 2 cents (not on baby names)
(Anonymous)
2006-05-24 06:04 pm UTC (link)
Hello there,
I recently heard an interview with you on NPR (in fact, it was about an hour ago) and I want to say THANK YOU for speaking out about this issue! I’ve been having an eerily similar conversation with my boyfriend and various friends over the past year, after I experienced my own “quarter-life crisis” as a result of this very entitlement ethic. I feel that this sense of entitlement is creating serious problems for many people my age, and the more we understand it the better we’ll be at reconditioning ourselves.
I would like to add that fortunately many of us are beginning to understand and accept the realities of life even when we weren’t properly prepared for them. (On a personal note: I do not attribute my own lack of preparation to my wonderful, intelligent, caring parents. They tried the best they could to raise me to be a community-oriented, family-minded adult. Rather it was my peers and society that taught me to be selfish in my pursuit of life. Fortunately it was probably the lessons my parents taught me that allowed me to snap out of it and behave like a responsible adult by the age of 26). When faced with the “real world,” many people my age are realizing the value of compromise in relationships (the horror!), paying dues in the workplace, and understanding that success is often the result of hard work and luck rather than, or in addition to, 4-5 years of undergrad.
At the same time, though, if the parents don’t cut the cord at some point then young people won’t learn anything. I don’t know if this is something you’ve addressed already, but I’ve noticed a trend toward older children receiving financial support from their parents up into their 30’s, especially here in New York City. Many young people I know rent or own apartments in desirable neighborhoods that are partially funded by their parents. The young people could not afford these apartments otherwise, and they feel no shame in taking the money. They feel they have a right to live somewhere that is comfortable and safe even if it’s beyond their means, especially if they are focusing their efforts toward chasing a costly “dream.” Parents aren’t allowing these kids to struggle, and in order reverse this sense of entitlement they have to actually work at supporting themselves.

* We are taught that in order to achieve our dreams, we must sacrifice relationships, duty, and even dignity. If that’s true, then I’d rather sacrifice my dreams.*

(Reply to this)
popular names
(Anonymous)
2007-12-22 02:05 pm UTC (link)
I am not at all surprised that we give our children a wider range of names today than we used to. After all, we *are* an ethnically more diverse bunch, and many of us are new immigrants. My daughter, for example, is called Matilde, quite a distinctive but by no means unusual name in my country of origin, Uruguay. Hey, when she was born I hadn't planned on staying beyond grad school. Then I did. Oops! Should I have given her a more "American" (is Anglo the same as American?) middle name to compensate, such as Jill, Jane or Jessica? I don't think so. I am very proud of my roots and hope she doesn't lose the connection. The most popular boy's name in the US today is not River: it's Jose. In other words, we are not just a bunch of hippies trying to make our kids stand out: we are parents trying to assert our cultural and ethnic identity. This is not a bad development. At the time when 6% of the girls were called Mary, 100% of African Americans were segregated. Give me a world full of Latoyas and Nichelles instead.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: popular names
[info]genme
2008-01-18 12:25 am UTC (link)
No, the most popular boy's name in the U.S. is Jacob. Jose doesn't even make the top 10:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/

And when 6% of girls were called Mary in the 1940s, many of those girls were African-American. Popular names didn't diverge by race until relatively recently.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…