Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Most Gender-Switched Names in the U.S.

flowingdata.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: The Most Gender-Switched Names in the U.S.

#151

Post by mffnbs »

hillz wrote: post #103
mffnbs wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a remarkable fact -- makes me think of how it's historically been much more acceptable for women to adopt men's styles of clothing, but much less accepted for men to adopt's women's styles of clothing. This is still the case today. I feel like the two are entirely unrelated, actually. If anything, we’ve seen the opposite phenomenon happen in every market. Buffalo Wild Wings commercials that cater to masculinit…

> We’ve seen the opposite phenomenon happen in every market. Not really? If buffalo wings are like a man's name, or men's pants, the same trend would be for women to adopt those things (which we do). Similarly, if you market only towards women, it is seen as somewhat shameful for a man (and sometimes, even for a woman) to purchase that good.

Is that not the exact phenomenon I'm talking about though? The markets exist because masculinity says it's otherwise embarrassing.

The same thing doesn't always exist in reverse. It's not embarrassing for women to drink black coffee or a beer, but it defies social masculinity for a man to drink sugary coffee or a mixed drink. It's fine for women to wear jeans, flannel, basically all mens clothes but it's taboo for men to wear any feminine piece of clothing.

You can probably come up with examples that betray this as a rule, which is why I'm not claiming it is one. It's a social influence that's pervasive to the degree that masculinity kills men who don't see a doctor or men that have their masculinity questioned and they retaliate with murder.

You hardly see women committing crimes because they were perceived as masculine.

Re: The Most Gender-Switched Names in the U.S.

#152

Post by thrower123 »

mffnbs wrote: post #52
crazygringo wrote: post #41

First, this is a great and original (AFAIK) post. Kudos to the author! Second, I actually find the most interesting fact to be completely unmentioned by the author: that in the first chart (greatest absolute changes), of the 30 biggest swaps, only two were female->male, while the other 28 (over 90%!) were male->female. It's a remarkable fact -- makes me think of how it's historically been much more acceptable for wom…

> It's a remarkable fact -- makes me think of how it's historically been much more acceptable for women to adopt men's styles of clothing, but much less accepted for men to adopt's women's styles of clothing. This is still the case today. I feel like the two are entirely unrelated, actually. If anything, we’ve seen the opposite phenomenon happen in every market. Buffalo Wild Wings commercials that cater to masculinit…

> Dr Pepper marketing towards men who typically don’t drink diet soda

I'm not sure that is how I would characterize the Dr. Pepper Lil' Sweet commercials, which appear to feature an extra campy mashup of Prince and peak glam-hair metal Axl Rose.

Re: The Most Gender-Switched Names in the U.S.

#153

Post by mffnbs »

elliekelly wrote: post #77
mffnbs wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a remarkable fact -- makes me think of how it's historically been much more acceptable for women to adopt men's styles of clothing, but much less accepted for men to adopt's women's styles of clothing. This is still the case today. I feel like the two are entirely unrelated, actually. If anything, we’ve seen the opposite phenomenon happen in every market. Buffalo Wild Wings commercials that cater to masculinit…

How interesting because from my perspective (a woman) I feel like I'm seeing significantly fewer products that are marketed to/cater to traditional notions of femininity and instead there seems to be a trend towards inclusivity. Tom Ford, Bvlgari, Calvin Klein, and Chanel all have uni-sex fragrances now. Chanel's is called "Boy" and CK's is very inclusively named "all". And there's a _huge_ trend in high-end cosmetic…

I hope that the trend is indeed heading in that direction but it does take years for high fashion to permeate through society.

Re: The Most Gender-Switched Names in the U.S.

#154

Post by maxerickson »

magduf wrote: post #149
maxerickson wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of them have pretty likely explanations. For instance, Angel got quite a lot more popular when Buffy the Vampire Slayer had a character of that name. Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_(name)

I don't think Angel has anything to do with Buffy. Angel is a traditional Hispanic male name. It's become more poopular because there's a lot more Hispanics in the US now, and they have a lot of kids. Other Hispanic names have also been rising in the name-popularity lists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_(given_name) Now if you want to see some interesting effects in name popularity due to popular culture, look a…

If you look at the graph, there is a notable change in the growth slope a couple years before 2000, which coincides with the introduction of the character.

There's also a decline a few years later.

Re: The Most Gender-Switched Names in the U.S.

#155

Post by olawd »

watwut wrote: post #117
mlang23 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The feminist movement managed to make femininity almost a swear word. Fascinating and very sad. As a male, I was always turned off by unisex products. I wonder how much profit these big companies make with this new marketing strategy. Is it really profitable, or are they just changing their products to avoid public shitstorms, hoping that the shitstorm avoided would have been even worse?

> The feminist movement managed to make femininity almost a swear word. Being "like a girl" being insult is not something that started with feminism.

Being 'Manly' is far from a compliment for a woman

Re: The Most Gender-Switched Names in the U.S.

#156

Post by ikeyany »

zwayhowder wrote: post #93
ikeyany wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how helpful that data would be, considering you'd get groupings like Aaron/Erin, which are very gender-aligned names.

I know more males called Erin than females. It's a common Irish first name that has nothing to do with the name Aaron, it literally means Ireland.

The article is about the United States.

Re: The Most Gender-Switched Names in the U.S.

#157

Post by whack »

weberc2 wrote: post #138
arrrg wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Look for example at studies of resumes with “black sounding” and “white sounding” names.

I don't doubt there are definitions of privilege which are falsifiable, as those pertaining to discrimination. But those are seldom used, and when challenged, the claimants fall back to some abstract unfalsifiable definition, i.e., a motte and bailey. Given that, perhaps it would be clearer if we stuck to a term that is clearly falsifiable, such as 'discrimination'. And as for discrimination, it's difficult to study,…

> I don't doubt there are definitions of privilege which are falsifiable, as those pertaining to discrimination. But those are seldom used

Discrimination, both subtle and overt, are the most common forms of privilege. Why do you think it is seldom used?

Re: The Most Gender-Switched Names in the U.S.

#158

Post by weberc2 »

whack wrote: post #157
weberc2 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt there are definitions of privilege which are falsifiable, as those pertaining to discrimination. But those are seldom used, and when challenged, the claimants fall back to some abstract unfalsifiable definition, i.e., a motte and bailey. Given that, perhaps it would be clearer if we stuck to a term that is clearly falsifiable, such as 'discrimination'. And as for discrimination, it's difficult to study,…

> I don't doubt there are definitions of privilege which are falsifiable, as those pertaining to discrimination. But those are seldom used Discrimination, both subtle and overt, are the most common forms of privilege. Why do you think it is seldom used?

Because there is very little supporting evidence for discrimination of any kind that could justify the “privilege” hoopla, and every time you press someone on their meaning of “privilege” they retreat from the “discrimination” definition to some abstract, probably circular definition (e.g., “men are privileged because there is no sexism against them; you can’t be sexist against men by definition because men are privileged”).

Re: The Most Gender-Switched Names in the U.S.

#159

Post by whack »

weberc2 wrote: post #158
whack wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't doubt there are definitions of privilege which are falsifiable, as those pertaining to discrimination. But those are seldom used Discrimination, both subtle and overt, are the most common forms of privilege. Why do you think it is seldom used?

Because there is very little supporting evidence for discrimination of any kind that could justify the “privilege” hoopla, and every time you press someone on their meaning of “privilege” they retreat from the “discrimination” definition to some abstract, probably circular definition (e.g., “men are privileged because there is no sexism against them; you can’t be sexist against men by definition because men are privi…

> Because there is very little supporting evidence for discrimination of any kind that could justify the “privilege” hoopla

The other poster provided significant evidence of discrimination

> https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

> To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase

Post reply on HN