“Shiloh and Suri are in good company: More parents looking for baby names that ... - New York Daily News” plus 1

Shiloh and Suri are in good company: More parents looking for baby names that ... - New York Daily News

Posted: 25 Feb 2010 01:22 PM PST

Message from fivefilters.org: If you can, please donate to the full-text RSS service so we can continue developing it.

BY Rosemary Black
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Thursday, February 25th 2010, 4:09 PM

The name game

When it comes to baby names, do you prefer unusual or traditional?

It's doubtful that Bronx, Apple or Naleigh will ever pop up on the annual Top Ten baby name list, but parents are definitely going for the unusual when choosing monikers for their kids, according to a new study reported on LiveScience.com.

Researchers at San Diego State University found that nearly one third of the boys received one of the 10 most popular names in 1955. But by 2007, fewer than one in 10 received a common name.

Among the girls, nearly one in four got one of the 10 most popular names in 1955, but by 2007, that number had fallen to one in 12.

In the study, researchers analyzed the names given to more than 325 million babies born between 1880 and 2007. They also used the Social Security Administration database of Social Security card holders for the study, according to LiveScience

"The trend for parents to give their child a unique, unusual name is huge," says study co-author Jean Twenge, San Diego State University psychology professor and the author of "The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement."

"You don't have to be a celebrity's child to get a very unique name," Twenge says. "We think the reason for parents choosing unusual names is that people today are more likely to describe themselves as assertive and more focused on the individual. An indicator of this cultural shift is more emphasis on uniqueness."

Back in the 1950s, she notes, a typical first grade class of 30 kids would have at least one James (the top boy's name in 1950). But it's projected that in 2013, there would be only one Jacob (the most popular boy's name in 2007) in every six classes.

Years ago, parents wanted to give their kid a name that would not result in the child getting beat up on the playground, Twenge explains.

"But that is all shifted now," she said. "Parents want their kids to stand out, not fit in."

And the trend to the unusual seems to be accelerating, according to the research. As late as 1990, half the boys received one of the 50 most common names. However, by 2007, less than one-third did. And the number of girls named one of the 50 most common names dropped from 37 percent in 1990 to 22 percent in 2007.

Twenge, who got the idea for the study while trying to decide what to name her first baby, went the old-fashioned way. She now has two daughters: three-year-old Katherine (which is consistently in the top 30 girls' names) and five-month-old Elizabeth (consistently in the top 10).

"It's always difficult as a parent to make the decision on what to name your baby," Twenge admits. "But common names are just easier. They are easier for the kid and for other people. That was a major consideration for me."

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Baby name accord: somewhere between Shlomo and Gustav - Jweekly.com

Posted: 25 Feb 2010 01:03 PM PST

Message from fivefilters.org: If you can, please donate to the full-text RSS service so we can continue developing it.

In my last column I expounded on the conundrum of picking a Jewish grandparent name. While this is nothing to sniff at, it pales in comparison to picking a name for the actual baby. After all, only one person needs to agree on a grandparent name — the grandparent. And it's not exactly a name they're going to use every day, on math tests and driver licenses and loan applications for all eternity.

rachel_leibold_200 Picking a baby's name is extraordinarily daunting — even more so than I could have ever imagined. Pick the wrong one, and you risk dooming your child to years of ridicule and expensive therapy.

I knew even before I got pregnant that if Dieter and I ever had a baby, choosing a name wouldn't be easy. Like many couples, we had occasionally discussed future baby names, and discovered pretty quickly that we disagreed on almost every one.

As an interfaith couple, we approached the topic from radically different angles. In my family, baby names are typically biblical or Hebrew in origin, and always honor deceased relatives. In Dieter's family, it's a no-rules, pick-what-speaks-to-you kind of deal.

After I got pregnant, the arguments began. Well, they weren't really arguments — more like increasingly tense discussions with no resolution.

For a few weeks, I imposed a moratorium on discussing the issue until we knew if we were having a boy or a girl. "There's no use in fighting twice as much as we have to," I rationalized.

At week 19, the doctor examining our latest ultrasound proclaimed herself "99 percent sure" we were having a boy.

We pored over baby name books and Web sites. The nice, Jewy names I came up with (Jacob, Michael) were too "common" for Dieter — nothing, he insisted, on the current list of top 10, or even top 50 baby names. That ruled out almost everything biblical.

I, on the other hand, nixed all his suggestions that sounded like dead European composers.

When I asked Dieter to focus on names starting with E or J (after my late grandparents, Ethel and Jerome), he came up with Jan — yes, for a boy.

"In South Africa it's pronounced Yan!" he told me.

"And we live in America!" I retorted. "Where it's pronounced Jan!"

I was becoming desperate. If only Dieter were Jewish, I thought wistfully. Surely that would make us miraculously agree on Isaac or Nathaniel or Efraim.

Then one day, Dieter walked into the room and said, "What about [name]?"

I won't tell you what it was. But it was perfect. Short, sweet and Jewish, but mainstream enough that the average American can pronounce and spell it. And, most importantly, it has a special place in my family's history. It was this last fact that sealed the deal for me.

I felt incredibly accomplished. Here we, an interfaith couple, had successfully navigated the baby name minefield, despite our vastly different backgrounds and beliefs. Hooray for us!

I called my mother to tell her. "Good for you!" she said. "Now, maybe you can help out your cousins. They've been fighting over their new baby's name for weeks."

Really! I thought. Both my cousin and her husband are Jewish. Same family history, same expectations. Shouldn't it be easier for them?

As it turns out, interfaith couples don't have a monopoly on fighting over names. Coming from the same background might have narrowed the pool, but it was no guarantee of perfect synchronicity.

And maybe that's a lesson for us, as we enter the realm of parenthood.

Following the same religion can help, but it's no panacea. Being an interfaith family won't be easy, but being a family never is — regardless of whether or not you go to shul together. Having the same core values, and an ability to compromise, is what will make this work.

Next time, though, I hope we have a girl. There seems to be no shortage of mellifluous girls' names to choose from, and in fact, I've picked out a perfect one.

When I told Dieter what it was, he sighed.

"It's nice," he admitted. "But that was the name of our dog … "

Rachel Leibold is a copy editor at j. She can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

/u/41504

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.