To wonder why it's OK - even considered a positive thing- to give girls names that are traditionally considered boy's names but....

[BertrandRussell]

.......not the other way round?

think we're on the think we're on the same side (so to speak) so I don't want to sound like I'm trying to start a fight but what about an orange t shirt or a red coat?

The red/ orange thing is a complete red herring. It is still ignoring the fundamental question of why on earth should one colour be for boys and another for girls.

There is a spectrum of children's clothes, from the stuff with tanks and helicopters on it to the pink frills. I tried to select my DDs' clothes from the middle of that spectrum: I wanted clothes that were practical, didn't show the dirt and gave the children a choice: I didn't want my daughters shoved down the 'to be female is to be frilly and ornamental' route. My DC were muck magnets, and generally the boys' version was usually in a darker colour

All you are doing is colluding in gender stereotyping that certain colours are for girls and certain colours are for boys and that girls' are inferior.

I love MacKenzie as a first/given name name, whether male or female. Showing my age here (and haven't read the full thread so might be repeating another poster, in which case apologies) hit on the American sit com One Day At A Time either one ofthe characters or one of the actresses was named MacKenzie. I knew someone who called their daughter Vicky-Paul, which has I also really like. But then, I wanted to call my first-born Seryohza (Anna Karenina's son) so maybe I just have form for this sort of thing

Meh.
There are masculine names, there are feminine names. Plently to choose from. There are unisex names if you really want to.
Why come up with nonsense that you child would suffer?

This thread is so interesting.
My oldest dd has a name that is unisex and a surname, it was more common for boys but now all the kids that I meet with the name are girls.

Both my dds have my maiden name as their middle name.

My next child if I ever do it again will also probably have a unisex name.

The red/ orange thing is a complete red herring. It is still ignoring the fundamental question of why on earth should one colour be for boys and another for girls.

I wasn't responding to the fundamental question, I was disagreeing with you that gender neutral means for boys. I don't think one colour should be for boys and another for girls.

But if you go to say, Asda or Tesco or Sainsburys or H&M or John Lewis or Next, etc, and look for plain orange tshirts, plain coloured jeans, and so on, then you are really not likely to find them in the "girls" section. I look at the girls section too when buying my son's clothes. All the clothes that would fit under "neutral", i.e. would not draw comment for boy or girl, are in the boys section.

(The other depressing factor is that the girls clothes seem to be more flimsy/thinner fabrics. Similar to adult clothes there I guess.)

All you are doing is colluding in gender stereotyping that certain colours are for girls and certain colours are for boys and that girls' are inferior.
Oh, okay, if you say so. In saying that I didn't want my daughters shoved down the 'to be female is to be frilly and ornamental' route and wanting practical clothes for them, I am 'colluding' in gender stereotyping. Let's get that again: in putting my DDs in practical clothes chosen from both isles of the supermarket, I was gender stereotyping.

I'm with splendide that 'gender neutral' doesn't mean 'boys' clothes'. In an ideal world, it would mean ANY children's clothes. In the stereotyping world we live in, it means clothes from the middle of the spectrum I mentioned above. My experience was that there were't enough of them.

On FB there was a link to a feminist blog where a woman launched a complaint about why women's jeans have non-functional pockets, i.e. you can't put next to nothing in them, while men's pockets can accomodate a wallet, a phone, and a sgtof keys

Because women are much more likely to carry bags?

At football this am there was a team, adult males playing in pink.

re: pockets - thing is, you can say women are more likely to carry bags, but isn't that for want of decent pockets? I can't stand not having my hands free - it annoys the fuck out of me to not have pockets capable of holding a smartphone or a wallet.

When your 7 month old baby boy who isn't actually even capable of getting his hands into his pockets yet has better jeans pockets than you do, there's something pretty wrong.

slightly - instead of arguing for women's clothes to have more pockets I would argue for men to carry handbags like we do, call it a manbag if it makes them feel better. I hate it when there's a man staying over and all the loose change etc. gets spilled on the bedside table, whereas a woman has everything enclosed in her bag, even if you can have a right mess inside the bag.

I can't fucking stand handbags though, I would beat my brains out rather than drag some miserable stinking shitbag of festering crap around with me effectively depriving me of the use of one hand all day, occupying a whole fucking chunk of brain to keep track of it all day, getting it nicked or misplaced or oh my god I'm getting stressed just thinking about it...

BURN THEM! BURN ALL THE FUCKING HANDBAGS! BURN THEM WITH FIRE AND PISS ON THE ASHES!!! BUUUUUURRRNNN!!!

ahem

I don't like handbags.

Fine if you like them. But suggest that everyone... uh oh, getting twitchy again, think I'd better get off MN and pour myself a glass of

What do you use then, a rucksack? I keep a ridiculous amount of stuff in mine, from first aid kit to tap shoe tools. Bonkers, but all essential, honestly Has to be practical though, across body strap, hands free.

I use a rucksack mostly or a little cross body one if I don't need much stuff. I can't imagine managing without a bag! Mine has - laptop, iPad, kindle, diary, various work paperwork to read, reusable coffee cup, often my lunch.

Agree about hands free though - can't imagine carrying one in my hand all day.

I use a rucksack for stuff I have to carry, like work laptop.

I shove everything I can in pockets. I have fleeces with big deep inside pockets. When I don't have to take something too big for a pocket like a laptop, I don't carry a bag at all by preference. If that means I carry less stuff, that's fine.

But then I can pack for a week away in carryon luggage - I am pretty ruthless and minimalist about what I drag along with me. Never got down to toothbrush & spare knickers but that's the idea Unfortunately DP has figured out I always have spare weight allowance and now tries to sneak his crap into my luggage

I can't think of anything worse than a big bag full of random crap to weigh me down.

instead of arguing for women's clothes to have more pockets I would argue for men to carry handbags like we do, call it a manbag if it makes them feel better

So true Gwen

Way back in the late 70s when I did wear jeans I bought mens' Levis. I don't recall the pockets being particularly great for carrying anything much- especially if jeans were worn as skin tight as possible.

I really don't get the determination of some MNetters that everything masculine is great and everything feminine is rubbish.

By far the easiest and most secure way of carrying keys, phones , cash, cards is a cross- body bag. The classic Radley cross-body"pocket bag" is brilliant.It's pick pocket proof, leaves your hands free and gives far more protection for an expensive phone than sticking it in a pocket. It comes in lots of colours including plain black or brown (for those who think wearing pink lowers one's IQ)

Men do seem to slowly getting the idea of bags. I see loads of "man bags" these days.

Pah! Bugger masculine or feminine - I just don't like carrying crap. What I have in my pockets is: phone, keys, change, wallet. That's all I need. I won't wear jeans that don't allow me to fit this stuff in. When I wear dresses, I pick ones that have pockets deep enough for a smartphone on one side and a wallet on the other.

I'd buy more dresses if there were more with decent pockets.

The other depressing factor is that the girls clothes seem to be more flimsy/thinner fabrics. Similar to adult clothes there I guess.

And shoes. From what I've seen, girls' shoes are likely to have less grip on the soles than boys' shoes.

Much more important to have a pretty butterfly.

I'd love pretty butterfly on decent grip soles. DS likes butterflies. I don't see why things can't be pretty and practical.

Hear hear!

Up to you. I wouldn't risk carrying an expensive phone and credit cards around in just a pocket.

Keys and coins damage pockets and you are likely to end up with holes. Stuffing keys etc into anything tailored , whether a suit, trousers or dress, spoils the hang of the garment.

I came across a female Paris recently. I guess it's the influence of Ms Hilton, but I was thinking of the Prince of Troy . I haven't heard of any boys called Paris lately.

I went to school with a boy called Verizon and when we were split into boy's and girl's activities, it was a while ago,he was always put in with the girls