Volume > Issue > What's In a Name?

What’s In a Name?

GUEST COLUMN

By Charles Helms | September 1994
Charles Helms is a Dallas attorney with a D.Phil. in Theology from Oxford. He and his wife have named their sons after the Apostles.

Far be it from me to be judgmental. The names my friends give their children are their business. But ever since my otherwise sensible college roommate named his first-born daughter McKenzie, I’ve been off the reservation.

What do girls’ names like Jordan, Chandler, Avery, Cassidy, Haden, McCall, Brooke, and Brittany have in common, other than usefulness in connoting a yacht club? First, they are unrelievedly masculine. It is as though Mom and Dad were thinking, “We want for young Lindsay to be taken seriously after she is graduated from Princeton and moves to the corporate boardroom. It won’t do to name her Mary Margaret.”

Could be. Certainly Mary, Margaret, and Michelle sound a lot more feminine than Mallory, Macey, and Maguire. But why stop at McKenzie? If boardroom virtuosity is so important, why not put the poor kid out of her misery and name her Carnegie or Forbes or Trump? (Still, one thinks of a certain politician named Margaret who did rather well de­spite the handicap of a ladylike moniker.)

Second, these names are unrelievedly Anglo-Saxon and Celtic. Though Yuppie parents loudly yap about diversity, they obviously want for little Taylor­-with-two-middle-names to grow up to be a WASP. She may not be a blue-blood, but she’ll need more space on application blanks than a Mayflower prep­pie-with-hyphenated-last-names.

Enjoyed reading this?

READ MORE! REGISTER TODAY

SUBSCRIBE

You May Also Enjoy

Briefly Reviewed: March 1986

The House of Wisdom... Basic Communities: A Practical Guide to Renewing Neighborhood Churches... Freedom with Justice: Catholic Social Thought and Liberal Institutions... De Lubac: A Theologian Speaks... J.R.R. Tolkien: Myth, Morality, and Religion

Letters to the Editor: April 2020

The Devil’s Word Games... Why the Trigger Warning?... Conservatism’s Unintelligent Design... Shame & Surety... Insightful & Inciteful

Two Dubious Anniversaries

Neither Lewis nor Eliot was willing to condemn all uses of artificial contraception, yet both had obvious concerns about the moral implications of its use.