do you think surnames are only good for boys?

Question

someone told me they though surnames were only good for boys. We once thought of harper and parker for girls (we have changed our minds though) but a few people said surnames are weird for girls what do you think, just curious?

some examples
Harper
Parker
Emerson
Sutton
Taylor
Tyler
Addison (its sometimes a last name)
Madison

well i know one major person. James Madison the fourth president. Lots of presidents names get used too, Kennedy, Reagen, Taylor, Tyler, Zachary, Madison

zachary obviously isnt a surname but u get mypoint

oh and a few people i think are confuzed, i am talking about using a surname for a first name ona girl, not giving a last name to a boy and giving the girl only one

Answer 1

I think they work...While I was in high school a few of my teachers had kids...and almost all the girls had surnames for their first name.

Madison Leigh
Mackenzie Rose
Parker Anne
Kennedy Grace
Dylan Marie

Those are what I can remember of their kids...3 of them are from student teachers...so in their 20's when they had them in school...I think that's why i remember the names so easily!

Best of luck withyour search!

Answer 2

In general, I don't think surnames should be assumed masculine or feminine. Some of the examples you listed, on the other hand, most certainly ARE. After all, Emerson, Addison, Madison and the like -- not to mention the currently-trendy Mc-/Mack- names (which also mean "son of") -- are not simply "last names." They don't denote a genderless place of origin or profession or anything along those lines. Their original intent -- and obvious literal meaning -- is to indicate that the person carrying it is a "son" of the name in question.

So while I agree that surnames like Harper, Delaney, Fallon and Romilly can obviously work for either gender, I also don't think it wise to generalize and include all names that happen to be used as surnames (such as the "son of" names that clearly imply gender). After all, Lilly, Rose, Henry and Harris are also common surnames, but I think most would agree they're fairly rooted as either male or female given names.

So a good argument, but not an all-inclusive one. ;)

Answer 3

I'm not a big fan of using common surnames as first names for either sex, but it does usually work better for boys than girls. I know Cameron and McKenzie are really popular' first-last' names. Its personal taste I suppose. I don't think i've heard of anyone with the last name Madison, but a girl friend of mines last name is Addison.

Answer 4

I personally love girls with last names as first names. I think it is a very cute naming tactic.

Answer 5

I love surnames for girls.

Answer 6

I know a girl anmed Taylor, Addison, and Maddison...the rest sound Masculine

Answer 7

of these names i only consider a few to be suitable for a girl
such as----EMERSON ,TAYLOR,MADISON.that said i think taylor and madison are too common anymore! some names are better suited for only boys such as HARPER,PARKER,SUTTON,TYLER!!
and then there is Addison which is better left as a surname only!!!!

Answer 8

Personally I wouldn't use a last name on a girl. I like pretty, girly names.

Answer 9

I think surnames are very cute for girls as well as boys (with exceptions of course)

I've kept girls in childcare named:
Camdyn
Madison
Briar
Sutton
Taylor
Addison (Addie)
Kennnedy
Carson
Bennett
Carrigan
etc

Answer 10

i only like madison outta these names 4 a girl cuz when i see all the other names i think boy well i hope this helps God bless