Naming children - should the state step in?

I'll make it simpler. For me (non-rhotic accent) the word harm would be pronounced something like hahm. If I wanted to convey to someone else the pronunciation of another word which rhymes with harm, it would be reasonable to approximate the pronunciation using an -ar- spelling. In my (and many other accents) adding an 'r' indicates that the previous vowel should be lengthened eg a becomes ah.
 
Architect said:
Erm, no, sorry, it's not. Shiv-awn would be a good approximation. There should be no hint of an "r" in Siobhan whatsoever, on account of it not actually being there.
Click to expand...
I would pronounce 'Shiv-awn' exactly the same as "Shiv-orn".

Is this like how you southerners have started saying (for example) "drawring" instead of "drawing"?
Click to expand...
I haven't, so I can't comment.
 
No, it's spelled Raymond Luxury-Yacht, but it's pronounced "Throat-warbler Mangrove"

My name is Noah -- still a unique name in the 70s and 80s -- and I was mildly hazed for it as a child. I took it in stride, though, and after a while some of my peers started calling me "Ark". It never phased me much, but I can imagine how it might have been worse if my name had been something as absurd as the one described in the OP.

My opinion is that parents should be allowed to name their child anything they like until the child vociferously complains and demands it be changed for legitimate reasons (ie, it invites violence or an undue degree of bullying*), or unless it is vulgar or hateful.

YMMV.

*to be be determined by the parents and/or the courts on a case-by-case basis.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Nice strawman there. Do you feel 20,000+ names to choose from and the option to apply for more is blind conformity?

Hans
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes a thousand times.

It seems like a pretty big cultural divide between Europe and NA on this issue. I think all of this naming nonsense is probably more of a cultural protection thing than anything else. Same reason you can't have english signs in quebec I guess.

Let parents name their kids what they want. I've yet to see a name that is going to cause any kind of real harm to a kid. Every name can be made fun of. Even common names like John have limericks or jokes based around them.

If a parent is so stupid as to name their kid something utterly profane the name is probably the least of the issues they are going to have to deal with. If you want to make naming kids certain things illegal you're going to have to make a lot of other parental practices illegal first. And in fact if you look at Europe vs the USA you will see that this has been happening (for instance spanking bans). So again, I think this is a cultural divide.
 
One way for governments to minimize names like the ones in the OP without being too restrictive or making judgment calls on each and every name or without using vague criteria like "reasonable" or "vulgar" or "offensive" would be to place certain general prohibitions such as "no phrases or sentences"; "no corporate trademarks"; "no web addresses"; and "no numbers or other non-alpha characters, except apostrophes and hyphens." It would still allow for many silly one or two-word names, but would eliminate a lot of the absurdities.

Another tool would be to require parents to state a reason for choosing the name. I'm not suggesting that the answer be used to determine whether the name is allowed, but if the parents are forced to think about the reason for the stupid name and have to put it down in writing, they might reconsider. If someone really has the nerve to write "because we thought it would be hilarious" and follows through with it, well then, they've got bigger problems. People like that just need to have someone say to them, "No, this form is for the name of your child, not your racehorse."
 
whatthebutlersaw said:
If you read through the part you snipped, again, you will see that I make no claim that the name changes your destiny but point out that the demographics of the Bennys is the likely cause. I.e that is exactly what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, it was not my intention to slight your post.

But I'm also saying that teachers and employers are going to treat you in a certain way because of your name.
Click to expand...

I can't say this is not the case.

I don't know how Denmark operates on this but in Sweden there is a distinction between working class and "white trash" - they are not the same people.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of a similar distinction here. However, people with foreign (middle east) sounding names will certainly experience discrimination, especially on the job-market.

Personally, I think someone who names their kid Number 16 Bus Shelter needs a stern talking to. But I feel the exact same way about Thexaz' parents.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

In the end, I do find the Danish naming laws (not to mention the Finnish) too restrictive by far. I don't give much for national identity and I see no reason at all to take Christian sensibilities into consideration (as is the case in Sweden).
Click to expand...

Actually, the Danish list seems to hold tons of muslim names.


I think it's better if the name can be challenged, rather than verboten outright. 20.000 names ain't that much. Even when it's not regulated, people act as if there are only four names per gender per generation anyways.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some 25 names account for 80% of the population. - Which seems to indicate that 20,000 is more than enough.

I think it's better to step in after the fact - if a name is presumed okey until it's challenged, rather than having to apply for your name. That just sounds Kafkaesque to me.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with applying. That is the way the list gets updated.

And what more indication do you need that everything isn't okey in a particular household than the fact that the registration slip says "Jehosaphat Likes Barbies"?
Click to expand...

??

Hans
 
zooterkin said:
Should the state have any say in what parents name their children? New Zealand apparently does:
Click to expand...

Pfft... some people shouldn't have children. If you're sufficiently ignorant of your parental responsibility to give your kids stupid names just to get a laugh, you shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Seriously, do you think they are good parents who take care of their child ?
 
NewtonTrino said:
Yes. Yes a thousand times.

It seems like a pretty big cultural divide between Europe and NA on this issue. I think all of this naming nonsense is probably more of a cultural protection thing than anything else. Same reason you can't have english signs in quebec I guess.
Click to expand...

No, that's because we love to be different and special, in Québec.
 
You CAN have English signs in Québec. But don't let that stop you from spreading off-topic disinformation, people. :rolleyes:
 
crimresearch said:
"You specifically responded to the 'N' word as an extreme example, by claiming that conformism in names was none of the government's business. "


Well then tell whoever was using your computer in post #42, to make clear that it wasn't you who typed these words:

"Until actual harm is demonstrated, I see no need for the state to get involved in determining what is or is not an acceptably conformist name."

...in specific and quoted reply to the 'N' word as an extreme naming example.
Click to expand...

Thank you for quoting my exact words, so that everyone could see that I never "claim[ed] that conformism in names was none of the government's business".


ETA: And by the way, a judge *is* the government in the countries under discussion.
Click to expand...

As has been clear from the beginning, my objection is to government intervention in naming a child. If, after the fact, it can be demonstrated that harm is caused by the name, then I accept that government intervention -- in the form of judicial review -- may be necessary.

Vortigern99's position expressed below, seems reasonable to me.

Vortigern99 said:
My opinion is that parents should be allowed to name their child anything they like until the child vociferously complains and demands it be changed for legitimate reasons (ie, it invites violence or an undue degree of bullying*), or unless it is vulgar or hateful.

*to be be determined by the parents and/or the courts on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...



Agatha said:
In England and Wales, legally at five, but practically most children go to school at four, having been at nursery school since the age of three (as it is free from that age).

A child here has to be named by 1 year and 42 days after birth; so jiggeryqua was wrong in suggesting that a child could remain unnamed to school age.

My point was that the three things you stated as making it necessary for a child to be named immediately at birth (medical insurance, tax returns, social security number) - and suggesting any country which didn't require such things was "bizarro world" - aren't necessary for newborns in the UK. We have the NHS, and our tax and social security system is quite different. Perhaps you didn't mean to be insulting to other cultures, but it certainly smacked of USA or the highway.

All my children were named shortly after their births and in two of the four births we didn't have a settled name planned, and in one case we changed what we had decided after the child was born as he "looked like" a Charles, not a Robert as we had planned.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was unclear, but my characterization of jiggeryqua's position as seeming to come from "bizarro world" was entirely based on his apparent suggestion that children could go years without being named. The part about medical insurance, etc, was merely meant to serve as examples of reasons for children to be named earlier.
 
Morrigan said:
You CAN have English signs in Québec. But don't let that stop you from spreading off-topic disinformation, people. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You can? That's news to me. If so it would certainly be the exception and not the rule.

It's also very difficult to send kids to school in english.

All of this is in the name of protection the french language and culture.
 
NewtonTrino said:
...Under what possible bizarre world should the state be allowed to step in and control peoples names? To me the idea is just plain insanity....
Click to expand...

It falls into the category of protecting children from parental abuse, just as the state can step in when parents assault their children or fail to provide appropriate care. The question of what kind of name constitutes abuse would certainly be a judgment call, but that's what we pay judges for. Imagine an unwanted child being legally named "Bastard Bitch" or "Just Kill Me." I hope the authorities would step in with big feet. Any names that subject the kid to a lifetime of humiliation (let's call him "Judas Iscariot") merit judicial review.
 
Last edited:
The OP is a little misleading. This is not a case of the government controlling what a parent calls their children, but rather the courts stepping in to protect the rights of a child who wants their name changed. The name change was initiated by the child, in the midst of a custody dispute. She has her own lawyers, and the judge has ordered the name change after considering both sides of the argument. We have quite a robust legal tradition here of taking into account a child's wishes as an individual. Ever before they are 16 (and can exercise legal independence) there are countless scenarios in which a child can obtain legal independence from their parents on particular matters.

In New Zealand the registrar of births, deaths and marriages can refuse to register a name if it's offensive to a reasonable person. They will also not register a name that uses characters other than letters.

Which brings as to a little side point, the judge's claim that "Number 16 Bus Shelter" is a registered name is false, as numbers are not permitted. Parents who wanted to name their child "4real" were turned down a few years back on the same grounds. There is, however, a child called "Bus Stop" who was indeed named after the site of their conception. The judge is probably thinking of that child. (That child went to the school my sister taught at, and the twins "Benson" and "Hedges" (who are often mentioned in these sorts of articles) were in her class).

Most of the strange names in New Zealand come from recent immigrants (particularly Pacific Islanders) for whom English is not their first language (some don't speak English at all). Most of them are trying to help their kids to "fit in" by giving them English names, as most Pacific Island names are very difficult to pronounce and the kids get teased. Because of their poor English-language experience, a small number make mistakes and choose inappropriate names. In most instances the staff working at the registry will try to persuade the parents to choose another name, and this is mostly successful (because the parents' intention is to help their kids fit in, not to ostracise them), but obviously a few slip through the cracks.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
How your name can affect your life:

http://www.quirkology.com/USA/Experiment_surname.shtml
Click to expand...

The initials study is BS due to faulty statistics (really, you need to take the distribution of initials over time into account, otherwise you've got prevalent data you're using as if it were incident data). The last name one I'd have to look further into, but convenience sampling is already highly problematic.

Where I am from, Québec (which has been mentioned in the thread), bureaucrats have the power to refuse names that would subject the child to ridicule (they probably wouldn't allow Moxie Crimefighter; they wouldn't allow "C'est-un-ange", It's-an-angel I guess 15 years ago). You're also not legally allowed to change your name without a valid reason (such as your name is causing you prejudice), and to do so, you have to argue your case in front of a judge. Brides don't get to change their last names either, and that's a good thing. I don't get those "taking the name of the husband" cultures. That's just weird. Why cast off your family name?
 
Jorghnassen said:
You're also not legally allowed to change your name without a valid reason (such as your name is causing you prejudice), and to do so, you have to argue your case in front of a judge.
Click to expand...

Really? That seems a bit severe.

Brides don't get to change their last names either, and that's a good thing. I don't get those "taking the name of the husband" cultures. That's just weird. Why cast off your family name?
Click to expand...

To a certain extent it's a comparatively recent (i.e. Victorian) phenomenon. In Scotland, for example, wives traditionally kept their maiden names right through until the end of the 19th century. And of course traditionally gravestones use maiden names.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom