The Democrats have a Fiona Problem
In 2016 a sharp divide emerged in the US in baby naming, and this divide sheds light on why the Democratic Party is failing.
From the 1980s to 2015, androgynous names for girls surged across America. Taylor Swift’s mother perfectly captured the reasoning when she explained giving her daughter an androgynous name in 1989: “so she wouldn’t be held back if she went into business when she grew up.” This was hedge fund manager Andrea Swift applying the logic of her generation: if the world is rigged for boys, give your girl a name that lets her compete.
But analysis of Social Security Administration data shows a sharp divide in 2016. Half the states continued the trend of androgynous names for baby girls: Palmer, Wrenly, Collins were all in the top ten. In the other half of US states, feminine girls’ names have surged: Fiona, Miriam, Liana.
Guess which states are going back to gendered names? The blue states.
I’ve been sidetracked many times playing with this interactive map of girl names in the US. And I’m convinced what we’re seeing is the gender-equity paradox playing out in real time. This well–documented phenomenon in economics and psychology shows that in places where gender equality is higher, women prefer more distinctly feminine expressions of gender — including names.
The timing makes sense when you consider that the battle for gender equality at work was won by the early 2000s. Nobel Prize-winning economist Claudia Goldin’s research shows that by the 1990s, women’s workforce participation rates in their late twenties were nearly identical to men’s. The two-decade delay before we saw that shift reflected in baby names is a textbook case of cultural lag.
So today red states still operate under the assumption that girls need every advantage to succeed in a male-dominated world. But blue states have moved on. The feminine names reflect parents who don’t worry the world will underestimate their daughters – parents operating from confidence that gender equality has been achieved.
Ironically, Democratic Party continues to beat the drum about women needing advancement and wonder why no one is listening. While Republicans who want to restore traditional power structures are giving their daughters the exact tools needed to navigate the old boys club.
This is political realignment in action — not through policy positions, but through the fundamental assumptions about what kind of world we’re living in and what kind of world our children will inherit.
The parents choosing names for their daughters right now are making decisions based on the world they think their children will face, not the world their own mothers navigated. And those assumptions about the future tell us more about American politics than any poll or policy platform.
Good essay.
I remember in 2016, when a non-white was distressed that his own neighbors elected a racist, he was told, “Ya, but we couldn’t elect Hilary.” I then thought the US still has a blind spot for seeing misogyny, let alone a way to measure it.
Hence I get a kick out of your findings.
I like how you linked to a web site that MAGA folks, with their convenient belief in “American exceptionalism” would never try: the BBC. I go there too, because it’s free, thanks to British “socialism.” (Oooooh)
As for reaching red areas, I viewed on Youtube today about blue politicians holding rallies there with a huge turnout. I learned long ago (long story) that it’s a big mistake to assume in advance that you can’t go to the “heartland” (however defined) of the “opposition.” Because they can surprise you.
A Canadian poet sang, “First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin.” My two bits worth is that the blue extremists should take the centre first, before going on to be extremist… I guess a problem now is to be seen as being in favour of equal rights for women, as being reasonable creatures, without also being seen as woke.
Trends in baby names have been going on forevah. After Nelson won at Trafalgar, girls were named Honor, which I think is a gorgeous name.
Everyone knows Hillary Clinton was named for Edmund Hillary, so even her name has masculine connotations.
The BBC is free to the rest of the world but here in England it’s just a big old tax. I used to attend and write court reports on London Magistrates’ Courts. I’d watch single moms from council estates (social housing) get CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS for not paying the BBC propaganda tax. Why single moms? They were the only ones stupid enough to open the door when the BBC Detector guys rang the doorbell. If you open the door they can write you a ticket. If you don’t open the door they can’t. This was raised in parliament but nobody cares about single moms and their problems.
I know a few clever gals who named their boys androgenous names, so their cv doesn’t give away the gender immediately. That has stood them in good stead these past few years.
The name Taylor is totally a girl’s name now, just like Shirley became in the 1930s, and Vivian.
The trends I see aren’t politically biased but rather social class and ethnic origin based. Black moms come up with fun, unique names, or else black upper class girls get white bread names like Amelia and Emma. Hollywood’s children get unique names – Shiloh, Raven, Lillibet, Apple.
I had real problems with the data used here. The “red state/blue state” article you link to didn’t have any links, but when I did a search on social security I got this:
https://www.livenowfox.com/news/top-baby-names-2024-official-list-social-security-administration
It’s all about social class, not political persuasion. Still fun to mull it over.