I’m going to do something I never do, and never expected to do: have a guest blogger here. Seriously. But you’ll see why, in this case, I have allowed it. While the views of this guest blogger are not necessarily the same as mine, in this case they are. And they’d better be!
The BA has graciously agreed to allow me to be a guest blogger. Since he’s married to me, he pretty much had to agree, or face several weeks of the cold shoulder and no hot dinners, but I still want to thank him for his generosity. So without further ado…
 |
| Your guest blogger. |
Has anyone else noticed that newscasters and commentators seem to feel it is perfectly appropriate to refer to Hillary Clinton as "Hillary" while referring to every other presidential candidate by their last name, or first and last name? This has been bugging me for a couple of weeks, but the clincher was last night. I was watching MSNBC’s coverage of Super Tuesday and in the hour that I watched I heard Senator Clinton referred to as Hillary at least 30 times by a dozen different commentators ranging from conservative to liberal. Barack Obama was called "Barack" once and every other candidate was referred to by their last name or their full name. I find this troubling. Does anyone else see the problem here? To refer to a person by first name only strips away a layer of formality and respect. That’s why school children aren’t allowed to address (most) teachers by first name and (most) parents don’t allow their children to address them by first name. Addressing or referring to someone formally indicates to the listener that this is a person in authority, deserving of respectful treatment. I wonder why it is that the talking heads on television and radio don’t feel that Senator Clinton deserves the same level of respect that the other candidates do.
While pondering this mystery, I thought to myself "Why, they’re doing it so people won’t confuse her with her husband, Bill Clinton." But I realized that doesn’t work because all they need do to resolve the problem is add in her first name –- say it with me now, broadcasters –- "Hillary Clinton". When the current President Bush ran for office, there didn’t seem to be a problem distinguishing him from his father, George Sr. He was sometimes called Dubya, but that was a nickname, not the same as calling him simply George Junior or George W. I did sometimes hear him referred to as George Bush, Jr. or George W. Bush, but they were using his entire name, which is OK -– that’s still respectful.
The only reason I can come up with for the inappropriately familiar use of "Hillary" alone is that she’s a woman. I don’t want to think that’s the cause, but I can’t think of any other reason. Hillary Clinton is a woman with a real shot at being the Democratic candidate for President, and this is probably, at least subconsciously, disturbing to some people. Maybe it’s because we’ve never had a female candidate get this far, so it is simply an unfamiliar, and therefore unsettling, situation. Maybe it started as a conscious attempt by some broadcasters to refer to her in a diminutive way, thus trivializing her role in the election. I don’t know how it started and I’m not advocating a conspiracy –- the BA probably wouldn’t post this if I did! I did a couple of Google searches and I couldn’t find anyone else who’s blogged or commented about this. I may be more sensitive to it because I’m a woman, but I’m betting I’m not the only person, man or woman, who’s noticed it. This whole thing leads me to wonder: if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected, will the talking heads refer to her as President Hillary?
Sincerely,
Mrs. BA
February 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I think you’re reading into it a bit much. She campaigns with signs that say Hillary all over them, I don’t see nearly as many Mitt, John, Mike or Barrack signs. As much as Bush treated Dubya as a nickname, I always thought of it as what you’d call your dimmer younger sibling.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I recognized this as well months ago, and made a concerted effort for awhile to refer to her as “Clinton” or “Hillary Clinton”, even though I realized it was an uphill battle.
When it became obvious, though, that the Hillary Clinton campaign ITSELF was promoting her as such, e.g. “Join Team Hillary” I gave up and simply decided to go with her own campaign’s terminology.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Ironically, the lower ad module shows me a skyscraper format ad from www.pollingpoint.com that says “Hillary in 2008?” in 36-point type.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
It’s a good point, Mrs. BA. I’ve caught myself referring to her the same way, so I’ll make a conscious effort to use her proper name as it befits someone of her office.
I’m still voting for Obama, though.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
One possible (non-conspiritorial) explanation may be her very own campaign logo. All of her signs and banners just say “Hillary for President”.
http://www.4president.org/ocmi2008.htm
I’m just sayin’…
February 6th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Any complaints about people referring to her as Hillary are instantly nullified by the fact that her own campaign refers to her as Hillary. How many “Clinton” bumperstickers have you seen? And how many “Hillary” ones?
Face it, it’s an effort by her own campaign to make her seem like a normal person. Down to earth. “Oh, you can call me Hillary, let’s sit down and talk some common sense”.
(For the record, I will vote for *anyone* but Hillary.)
February 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
It kind of bugged me early on but it really is the campaign’s own branding. Go to:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/?sc=a702&gclid=COzPtt64sJECFQ2kHgodDSN-5A
And you see “Hillary for President” as the top banner. Go to:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/semr?source=SEM-register-google-obama-search-national
And you see Obama ‘08 at the top banner.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
This is interesting. I haven’t paid attention enough, but I’ll start to keep an eye out myself and see if I notice a similar pattern.
What I noticed last night while watching the returns is the underlying racism and sexism of the (mostly white and male) newscasters, in analyzing the returns. There was a lot of talk about how well Senator Clinton did among women, and how well Senator Obama did among blacks. In cases where more women voted for Obama, the newscasters has this sort of “can you believe it!” tone, like they were suprised that women wouldn’t automatically vote for a woman! As if that’s all I use to make up my mind.
Every time they talked about it, I’d think, “What if I was a black woman? WHAT WOULD I DO???”
February 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
It’s not just that she’s a woman - it’s that she’s one of them uppity liberal women. Elizabeth Dole was referred to as “Liddy” Dole, but never just as “Liddy” when she ran for president. Shirley Chisholm was never just Shirley, either, but who would want to be on her bad side?
But, I can think of a couple of male examples of this happening - Harry Truman was often just referred to as Harry, and Theodore Roosevelt was frequently just called Teddy.
There is an awful lot of hatred towards the Clintons from the media. They have taken steps to highlight the “viciousness” of this campaign season even though it hasn’t been particularly bad - anybody remember the “Dean scream”? They have talked on and on about how “divisive” a figure Senator Clinton is, how much “partisan hatred” she represents, even though that division and partisanship was entirely the fault of one side of the debate. It is a very classic case of blaming the victim for the crime perpetrated against her.
If there was more of a pleasant attitude toward her in the media, I would think of it as an endearment, much like it was for Truman and Roosevelt. But that attitude doesn’t exist, so I fall in the same camp you do - it is used to demean her.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Once again I’ve been beaten to the punch. www.hilaryclinton.com uses her first name far more prominently than her last.
It may even be a conscious marketing tool used because she is a woman. She may want to emphasize that fact in the minds of democratic voters who feel it’s “about time” for a female president.
Though I must say before going to that site for research I had the same thoughts, and I certainly hope it is not meant to disrespect her as “only” a woman.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I’ve noticed this too. I’m not sure if it’s being intentionally disrespectful - and the comfortable familiarity might even work to her advantage - but all candidates should be treated and referred to with the same level of courtesy.
When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK she was popularly known as ‘Maggie’ but never in serious media, where ‘Mrs Thatcher’ or her full title were typically used. The same seemed true for Benazir Bhutto, as another example of a political leader.
Female politicians here in Europe are usually referred with the same protocol as their male equivalents.
Nice piece by the way, you should guest here more often!
Martijn
February 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I was a big tennis fan in high school in the 1980s. Even back then, it was noted during tennis matches that women players were called by first names and men by their last names. Think if the great rivalries of the decade: Chris vs Martinez and McEnroe vs Lendl. This has been an issue for a LONG time.
Still Senator Clinton has embraced it…you can “Join Team Hillary” on her web site. As long as she embraces it, it will not go away for better or for worse.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
While at the Colorado Democratic Caucuses last night, I noticed that Senator Clinton’s own campaign signs just say “Hillary for President.” And if one visits hillaryclinton.com, that is also the logo at the top of the website.
While I agree that using someone’s first name exclusively takes away a measure of respect, and I don’t know who first started referring to her as Hillary, Senator Clinton’s campaign seems to have embraced her first name.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Or conversely, it could be an attempt to increase her likability. There has always been this attempt by republicans to de-humanize her and it could be an attempt to counteract that. I know that she specifically asked the news organizations to use “Hillary Clinton” as opposed to “Hillary Rodham Clinton” so it might even be her own doing. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/229610/hillary_clinton_drops_rodham_from_name.html)
If anything I feel like there is a slight bias in favour of her over Obama. She has, for most of the election been portrayed as the inevitable candidate. I admit though this just could be a bias on my part both because I am an Obama supporter, and because she seems to be the one playing the Rovian style politics this time.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I have to agree with everything that I’ve already seen so far. I think that there is a big effort on the part of the campaign to use Hillary instead of Clinton, and I’m sure that there are many reasons to do so. And I have heard several Baracks, but it is iffy.
As for the idea of them using it because she’s a woman, I dunno… If memory servers, during Elizabeth Dole’s campaign for 2000, I don’t recall anyone just calling her “Elizabeth”.
But I think that referring to her as Hillary is exactly what the campaign is pushing for, to make her more accessible and likable.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I can understand the point… And it would seem natural for someone to assume that there is something odd going on here, especially since she is the only woman. But as soon as I read your note, I thought, doesn’t she refer to herself as “Hillary”? And I went to her website (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/), and sure enough, at the top, it says, “Hillary For President”. All of her headlines are like, “Hillary Wins Arizona … Califiornia, etc…” Under Contribute, it says, “Drive Hillary’s campaign to victory by making a contribution today.” Her memo says, “Yesterday’s results confirmed Hillary’s strengths and signaled that she made inroads with key groups and demographics.” She has a link that says, “Join Team Hillary”. It goes on and on and on (”Women for Hillary”, “Get your official Hillary gear”, “Hillblazers … Young leaders for Hillary in 2008″, “Hillstars”, “HillaryHub.com … THE source for Hillary news”, etc.)
Then I thought, exactly where does she use the word, “Clinton”? At the bottom of the page, in real fine print, it says, “Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President”. There is also a small reference under, “The Fact Hub”, where it mentions “The Hillary Clinton Campaign”. Nowhere else on the page does the word, “Clinton” appear. “HILLARY”, though, is all over the place! That’s powerful.
So, why has she abandoned the word, “Clinton”? We can speculate all day about that, but it really doesn’t matter. The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton has *chosen* to be called “Hillary”, and the media is just following her lead. Whether that helps or hurts her I don’t know, but what is clear is that it is her own choice. It has nothing to do with people, or the media, being “uncomfortable” with the idea of a woman for president.
Thanks!
February 6th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
@Stephanie
“What I noticed last night while watching the returns is the underlying racism and sexism of the (mostly white and male) newscasters, in analyzing the returns”
What really gets me is that they only know this data based on exit polls, which obviously have major flaws since those same exit polls often showed different results than the official results. If the question “who did you vote for” can’t be trusted, then how in the world can the questions concerning race, sex, or religion be trusted?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Actually I thought about this issue a lot and I was concerned about whether to call her Hillary or Clinton when blogging about her. My initial instinct was to use Hillary because it would make it clear that I didn’t mean Bill. But I also thought that might sound somehow like I was being less respectful or perhaps sexist in doing so.
I ended up settling on using Hillary because she herself uses Hillary as her branding. She’s made an express point of running as Hillary rather than Clinton for what I suspect is the same reason I initially thought to go with that name (i.e. making it clear she’s not Bill). I know at least some in the media also consciously chose to refer to her as Hillary for the exact same reason (her branding, though probably some do it in the interests of eliminating confusion independent of that).
To see if this is a matter of branding, or sexism, consider this: how many articles do you see talking about Nancy Pelosi using her first name? They’ll either use her full name, Pelosi, or Speaker Pelosi. They don’t just refer to her as Nancy. So my sense is that it’s more about creating that distinction between Bill and Hillary that drives the use of her first name, not a lack of respect. It’d be like referring to Oprah as “Winfrey”. Clearly she’s made a choice to brand herself using her first name, so it’s not disrespectful to use that.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Um, it’s all over her signs. Seems to me she’s branded herself, and the media are playing along as requested. She’s doing that, no doubt, to achieve the differentiation from the previous Clinton, and said (in the LOGO “debate”) “I’m your girl!” If she’s trying to achieve humanization of her image via being personable and accessible, then the first-name thing is hardly an act of sexism and really just a desired reinforcement of the campaign’s message.
We’d all be better off focussing on issues and not worrying so much about peering under rocks for every conceivable racial or gender slur.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I surmise the reason why Hillary is referred to as such is because we already feel intimate with her after having spent some eight years in the Oval office, like her or hate her. What other First Ladies have ran for President?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I think it is more her campaign’s effort to counteract the feeling that we are entering an era of political dynasties: de facto monarchies of the elite who swap presidential terms every so often.
Personally, I’m tired of both families and wish they would all retire.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
There are probably a number of factors… from her own marketing to the need to distinguish her from Bill. Its probably too simplistic just to call it sexism, tho that is also clearly a factor.
Seems to me the simplest solution is “Senator Clinton”.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
In addition to her own marketing using primarily her first name, it may also have at least something to do with the familiarity with Hillary Clinton as a first lady. Wasn’t she often called by her first name when she was a first lady and when Bill Clinton was running?
Here’s a test we can do…
If it’s mostly a gender issue, then we should see similar first-name-only effects when we look back at articles about Elizabeth Dole’s candidacy or Geraldine Ferraro’s vice-candidacy. I’m too lazy to investigate those old articles, but I don’t recall hearing much about “Geraldine” instead of “Ferraro”. Similarly for Dole.
The Doles and Clintons are similar, so that’s actually a pretty good test. Both families had males that were candidates and politically well known before their wives subsequently ran for president.
Personally, I would be surprised if it’s mostly a gender issue. But I’d be equally surprised if it’s unrelated to gender.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
The people who note that she uses her first name in her own publicity make a good point, but to prove their case they need to eliminate the possibility that Clinton decided not to try to fight something the media had already decided. What slogans did she use for her Senate run?
She does, of course, play on her gender in her speeches, but that, too, may be a decision to accept the fait accompli that she has been stereotyped, and make the best of it.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Oooooooooor… It could be that her website says “Hillary for President” and Barack Obama’s says “Obama ‘08″.
Geez, some people see conspiracy and/or prejudice into everything…
February 6th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I agree that calling herself, or allowing herself to be called “Hillary” may cause people to take her less seriously. I wonder if it is better or worse then if she were referred to as “Mrs. Clinton?”
I noticed a similar thing when Kerry was running against Dubya. They referred to Shrub as “The president” and Senator Kerry as “Mr. Kerry.”
It made it seem like [deep magisterial voice] The President of the United States[/deep magisterial voice] and some other guy.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
you are reading two much in to this. this was on npr here in ny and was pointed out that she does this. first she was hillary rodham then then decided it was hillary rodham-clinton and now whe decided she wants to be known as hillary. i understand the concern but you are wrong.sorry
February 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I think Hillary Clinton may be encouraging this familiarity because it helps her campaign: it makes her seem friendly and likable, especially (I would bet) to women. She doesn’t have a problem being seen as competent, which might be an issue for a different female candidate: her problem is overcoming the sort of Ice Queen image many people have of her. So is fighting one sexist stereotype with another justified? Tough call, but I bet being known as Hillary is working in her favor.
However, I do agree that newscasters, who are supposed to be objective reporters, ought to refer to her the same way they do to other candidates, with first and last names or a title and a last name.
At the chaotic caucus last night, I heard a harried Democratic offical accidentally refer to Obama as “Baracko,” which I thought was pretty funny. It might catch on!
February 6th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I haven’t been able to watch any of the debates, but has anyone thought to ask the Senator about her opinion on this?
I have to admit, growing up in Arkansas as I did, the Clintons were very often referred to as “Bill and Hillary” so I usually think of both of them on a first name basis. But then, as a faculty brat, I was on a first name basis with all my father’s fellow professors — they just all happened to have the same first name: Doctor.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
OK - before I get buried by comments about how Hillary Clinton’s advertising campaign refers to her as Hillary, I’d like to reiterate that what I object to is the newscasters calling her Hillary. It doesn’t matter what her website and bumper stickers say, it is the responsibility, although an alarmingly ignored one, of newscasters to provide a fair and equitable forum. It is no more appropriate for them call her Hillary simply because she wants them to than it would be for them to paste ‘Hillary 08′ bumper stickers all over their news sets. The commentary these people provide has a huge impact on voters. Whether you see their use of Hillary as helping or hurting her campaign, the point is that they should not be doing either.
BTW - The only time I allow myself to be referred to as Mrs. anything is here. I had a discussion with the BA about this years ago because I really don’t like the prefix Mrs. He felt that calling me “Ms. BA’s” or “BA’s wife” was too awkward, so I relented, even though I didn’t like it. So for those of you who want to paint me as a “radical” feminist, I just handed you the brush. I didn’t change my name when I got married, I won’t open mailed addressed to Mrs. Philip Plait, a I still say I’m not making too much out of this.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
she does this because she needs to soften her image. most people consider her cold and bi***y. is this a double standard yes. but this was her decision.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Well, then which last name should the media refer to her by? She herself has pushed Rodham, Rodham-Clinton and just Clinton?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
The tendency to use a woman’s first name even in contexts where a man’s full or last name would be used is not a new one. It is so ingrained, in fact, that, as so many people have already pointed out, Clinton actively uses it in her own campaign.
It is interesting to observe how people talk and refer to men and women differently - spend a day listening actively and see if you spot it. Gender roles and assumptions are coded into our speech patterns to the extent that we often don’t even realize why we put things the way we do. It is, as I said, pretty normal for women in formal settings to introduce themselves using their first names where men would use their last names or titles, and for them to ask other people to use their first names. It is also pretty common for people to go ahead and use their first names in the first place. It’s what women are ’supposed’ to do. If they don’t, they’re generally seen as unfriendly, standoffish, cold, etc. Most of all, if a woman goes by her first name, nobody notices. If everyone around her chooses to address her by her title and last name, some people might notice but they figure it must be ok. If she asks to be addressed using her title and last name, particularly in response to other people using her first name, people wonder what’s wrong with her/why she’s so unfriendly/what makes HER so special….and it degenerates from there. You can kind of see why it’s just easier to use a woman’s first name. It’s cultural shorthand for “I’m just a regular gal. Nothing to be afraid of. Like me. Vote for me.” Which, in their own way, every candidate is doing. (er..the last two phrases, I mean. I doubt the rest want to be seen as ‘regular gals’)
Language is coded and layered and loaded and ultimately incredibly fun to study, even when it’s frustrating. If you’re interested, I’d suggest a look at Dr Deborah Tannen’s work on communication. Her work focuses largely on North America and the US in particular, but it’s a good base from which to look at how we communicate in most contexts.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Perhaps she wants to distance herself from her husband like she did when he was POTUS.
Speaking of POTUS, what the heck is Bill going to be called by Secret Service? FMOTUS? FHOTUS? Has anyone heard?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I think she’s encouraging it. Afterall, most signs say “Hillary” and not Clinton. Somehow, I feel more that it’s some sort of respect or affection.
It’s a well marketed politician ploy really. The newscasters fell into it and propagate it. Well played.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
i too think it’s actually her campaign trying to differentiate her from her husband. i thought for a minute that it might be sexism, but i don’t think so. some of her own ads/signs say “Hillary 08″. Why? Because of this:
Bush(VP) 1980
Bush(VP) 1984
Bush(P) 1988
Clinton(P) 1992
Clinton(P) 1996
Bush(P) 2000
Bush(P) 2004
Are we just going to have 2 sets of names forever? Is Chelsea next, then Jeb, then Bush’s kids?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
mrs. ba his topic was on the leornard lopate show here in ny on january 28. http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2008/01/28/segments/92541 just paste and go if you are interested
February 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Good. It’s an outdated formality based on an antiquated class system where you had to refer to your betters by their last name or title. Most workplaces have done away with requiring people to call their boss by his last name, so why should we continue with Presidential candidates unless it’s the only way to avoid confusion (i.e., you can’t really call McCain, John, because until recently there was another John in the race). And I believe the Clintons recognize this, which is why they put only her first name on signs and bumper stickers, and make sure Bill is never William.
And for the record, the news casts I saw last night had people saying “Barrack” as much as “Obama” and there were several references to “Mitt” instead of Romney.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
It certainly could be a lack of respect, but it doesn’t seem that way from where I am. I think my demographic has a lot of respect for women. I’m hearing some pretty solid reports that women my age have more education and are even making more money than men my age now. I know that both my sisters are more “successful” than me, and I’ve worked for more women than men in my lifetime. If it’s a lack of respect, I could be missing it.
As others have pointed out, Bill was president for quite a while and also hasn’t faded into the background the way GW Sr. has. When I hear “Clinton” mentioned, they could be talking about either one. And, of course, Hillary herself seems to be promoting herself by her first name through her campaign. We can speculate why she might choose to do that.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
It’s an intersting point, but I think you are definately reading too much into this.
She calls herself Hillary, hence the newscasters call her Hillary. I don’t think there is some subtle conspiracy by the evil white male media to patronize women by refering to Senator Clinton as Hillary.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
That is how her campaign refers to their candidate. This is, in part, a conscious act to distance herself from her husband. This is her desired branding.
Check out her approved campaign bumper stickers.
She is a -terrible- feminist candidate.
Margret Thatcher. Margret Thatcher. Margret Thatcher.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Sorry, but what does this have to do with astronomy at all?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I agree that Clinton is the only candidate who seems to be consistently referred to by his/her first name, but again, I think that is mostly her doing. Her own campaign decided to focus more on “Hillary ‘08″ than “Clinton ‘08″
February 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
It has nothing at all to do with astronomy Nat.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Yikes Phil! I guess we know where the next meeting of NOW is going to be held. We have a woman running for President that calls herself by her first name and makes that the basis for her public image: “Hillary 08″ We have another woman that finds fault when news people refer to a candidate the way that candidate referrs to herself, calling it an attempt to discredit and disrespect her. When the simple facts are pointed out to our guest blogger she responds by saying I don’t care…the newscasters should be calling her Mrs. Clinton, (or is it Mrs. Rodham-Clinton, or is it Ms. Clinton, or is it Ms. Rodham-Clinton, or is it Hillary X?)
Wow…just wow! Those better be some good hot meals Phil. This goes way beyond astronomy, skepticism, science, commenting on good/bad politicians. This is straight up conspiracy stuff. Some people just have to find something to complain about.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Mrs. BA wrote, “I did a couple of Google searches and I couldn’t find anyone else who’s blogged or commented about this.” Not very good searching, I’d say. I searched on the word “clinton” and the phrase “first name”, and I found lots of references that make it clear that Hillary’s campaign is encouraging this. It is her choice. Mrs. BA should not be worrying about this, even if she disagrees with Hillary’s choice.
(I am not the “David V” who also has a reply in this batch. I use “David V” myself a lot, so I was surprised to see this other one who reads the BA’s blog also.)
February 6th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Speculation:
If Hillary gains the nomination and wins the election, she’ll legally change her name back to “Hillary Rodham” before taking office.
I agree with those who suggest that the reason for her predominant use of her first name is to distance herself from William Jefferson you-know-who. The speculation above takes that to the extreme.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I think there is an element of truth in what you say.
Forget about the campaign. This goes back A LOT longer. Think about the way the media referred to her when Bill was President. How often was it Mrs. Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, instead of just Hillary?
And what about Condi?
How often do you hear people refer to her as Dr. Rice?
I think there is a certain element of affection for some people, but I also think this use of first names is more common with women than with men.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
1) @Nat: BA himself has said on an uncountable number of occassions that this is his blog and that he reserves the right to blog about whatever he feels like. If you think that the conversation is off topic, feel free to read the other blog post or to visit any of the numerous links that BA has set up for you.
2) While I also am in the camp that this is much ado about nothing, I have to admit that I think some people are being a bit rude in their responses. It’s just uncalled for, but I guess that’s always expected for the politic post.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Actually, except for comics and the Daily Show, I generally hear Dr. Rice referred to as Secretary Rice or just Rice, just as they have done with the rest of the cabinet.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Am I the only one who noticed that it’s at least equally disrespectful to get someone’s name wrong? I’m not trying to defend either Bush’s policies, but George H.W. Bush is NOT “Sr” and George W. Bush is NOT “Jr”. You’d think after umpteen years in the public consciousness people would have figured that out. I understand using the suffixes as unofficial shorthand, but when you’re trying to make a point about being respectful in referencing people it seems very hypocritical.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Regarding Condoleeza Rice, I believe that she was usually called by her full name, until Bush publicly referred to her as “Condi” a few times, a couple of years back… so its not so cut and dry.
“Doctor” is almost never said, tho I would argue that this is common amongst people in high office… almost all have multiple titles / degrees and it becomes cumbersome to use them. Hence, the simple use of name / current role.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Fairness went out the window a long time ago in broadcasting.
It would be more proper to refer to her as Sen. Clinton… but it’s hard to make your point if you look at her own web site. She’s “Hillary”.
I think there are far bigger fish to fry. How ’bout the idiotic double standard regarding any show of emotion by Sen. Clinton?
I’ll quote from TBogg (re: crying): http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/02/05/i-fembot/
“Now there are a lot of people who might get a bit choked up having a dear old friend and mentor say lovely things in such a setting, particularly if that person is choking up themselves, but that usually only happens at weddings, anniversaries and the occasional bris. And we are talking Hillary Clinton whose facial topography is studied as intently as the Mariana Trench.
Clintonalia scholars studying her every gesture will tell you that a smile (accompanied by her harsh and unappealing laugh) means that she is thinking about how much she would like to destroy America. A pensive look means that she is wondering who Bill is f[-]ing at that moment. A raised eyebrow means that she’s going to have Vince Foster killed. Again. In fact she has no emotions, no expression, that is without meaning, whether it is to fulfill her insatiable need for power or, in some cases, to hide her secret insatiable need for power. Part of it is Hillary and part of it is the fact that she is a woman (and God knows that dealing with white women can be a problem) and they have mysterious ways of sending us signals.”
It’s pretty well established that “the media” HATES the Clintons.
It’s also pretty easily demonstrated that the media has a sexist streak (see Chris Matthews).
I think Nadia has a very interesting take on the subject up there.
Anyway, nice to hear from you Mrs. BA Ms.not Plait.
Steve (dusty59)
February 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
It’s showing even greater respect to her as an individual. If she was often just called Clinton - every time you say that, you invoke the name of her famous husband as well. She uses Hillary as her own personal branding, and separates her from her husband’s shadow. To call her Clinton every time lumps her in with him. To call her Hillary - as she herself has asked and endorsed - that is the sign of respect.
If she stated she preferred Clinton, then it would be disrespectful - like calling Mitt Romney “Willard” - but that is not the situation.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I agree that her campaign is as much to blame for calling her “Hillary” than anyone. It’s a marketing ploy. A very successful marketing ploy considering even conservatives who dread the name “Clinton” call her “Hillary.” It’s all about marketing her as her as a brand all her own.
A lot of her critics see her as cold and impersonal and marketing herself with her informal first name is an effort to cut through that. I think it’s also an attempt to set her apart from her husband; to show that she can stand alone.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Hmmm… Nope, I don’t see it.
Newscasters say “Hillary” for the same reasons they say “Obama,” “McCain,” or “Huckabee”: it rolls easily off the tongue in a conversation.
Though it’s interesting to point out that the Republican National Committee would like to see her called Senator Clinton.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/1/31/fines-for-saying-hillary-or-barack.html
February 6th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Maybe it’s a sign of female liberation that people are using her first name. It is HER name after all.
Who’s name is her last name ? Her husband’s.
If you want to call her by her maiden name, then that’d be fine…
February 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Heh. That’s a little over-the-top, ScienceTeacher.
Okay, here’s my take. I teach in the public schools and think I would sometimes like my students to call me by my first name. But I know if I do then I will lose respect (what little they give me already). I don’t make them call me mister because of my ego, I do it because I have to stay in charge–can’t let the animals run the zoo so to speak. That title makes them think about their position versus mine, maybe subconsciously, but that’s how big brother works.
However, I *do* allow them to drop the ‘mister’ and call me by my last name only. My wife says that even this is too far.
Some of the commentors here have a very good point about what the media will call her if she gets elected. Once you start calling someone in the familiar, it’s difficult to change over and call them by the proper.
Ultimately, it’s not a sign of callousness or disrespect to call her what she wishes to be called. What’s next, calling P. Diddy by the name Mr. Combs? Maybe if he’s giving you money!
Glad you faced the nameless hordes, Mrs. BA! Write more sometime.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
As a woman I most often use “Hillary,” for one, it distinguishes her from Bill who has been running around campaigning for her, and two, even when she was First Lady and as a senator her supporters so often have said “Hillary.” Depending on the context I’ll use Clinton. Or Barack or Obama - nothing disrespectful to either. That said, your last sentence has some truth to it - there are people who won’t vote for a woman just for that reason. OTOH, there are women voting for her just because she’s a woman, and I don’t think that’s right either. (-:
February 6th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Her name at birth was Hillary Rodham, as far as I know. That last name - again, as far as I know - was passed down from her father. Her mother’s last name at birth is not part of common knowledge about her, and it has never been her name - as far as I know.
Most likely, her mother’s last name at birth wasn’t passed down from her grandmother either - her grandfather, perhaps, I don’t know. And so on for generation after generation, in perpetual patrilineage.
She wasn’t “Clinton” until she married Bill, er, William Jefferson Blythe III, who had changed his own name to “Clinton” at 14, ten years after his mother (Virginia Dell Cassidy) married Roger Clinton.
So it’s likely (but unknown to me now) that “Hillary” is the only name related to her in any way that’s uniquely and exclusively hers.
But to my personal and first-hand knowledge, she was “Hillary” back in 1997, and it would surprise me if she wasn’t “Hillary” before that as well.
She could post here and clear things up for us, but somehow I don’t think she’s as worried about it as some people are on her supposed behalf.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Mrs. BA,
You might be interested in reading this book.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Liberal-Media-Truth-About/dp/0465001777/ref=sr_1_9/105-0724632-3826000?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187133429&sr=8-9
I found it very eye opening.
http://freephilosophicaldiscussions.blogspot.com/2007/08/few-years-ago-i-read-book-called-what.html
February 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
For what it’s worth, I’m with you 100% Mrs. BA. It doesn’t matter one whit what her campaign strategy is - newscasters shouldn’t be playing that game. It’s entirely reasonable to call them out on it.
Also, I think the unfortunate truth is that Senator Clinton has to play into some sexist ideas to be electable. So just because she herself uses certain tactics is by no means evidence that they’re not sexist.
It’s like arguing “Well, Anne Coulter is a woman, and she thinks women shouldn’t vote! That means it can’t possibly be sexist to be against women’s suffrage!” That should be patently ridiculous to any reader, but the same logic seems to be at work with many commenters here.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Interesting post Mrs. BA.
When she wins: will she be Madam President? Will she and her husband be Madam and Mister President? I suspect those responsible for protocols will be creating many interesting precedences.
By the way: Is it becoming common in the USA for women to keep their own names when they marry? I approve. It is a neat way of marking that marriage is a partnership not a property transfer.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I’m generally more inclined to see these kinds of things as laziness and incompetence than some kind of mysogynistic conspiracy.
She has personally taken on the moniker of “Hillary”; she is the first person you think of when someone says Hillary even if you don’t know what they are talking about. The mass media does a great job of latching on to a meme and running with it.
I think if The Daily Show has taught us anything it is that once the news media hits upon a catchy phrase they will run with. How many times does Jon Stewart play clips from all of the major news channels that use the same regurgitated talking points, “witty” phrases and melodramatic taglines to describe the same story or person.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Marriage isn’t a transfer of property?
February 6th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I’m glad to see the formality being removed from the office of the president. The president is not the authority, the people are. The president is only a tool of the people. Presidents should be removed from power by the people when they no longer serve the will of the electorate. So formality be damned. I will never give a title of authority or respect to my power drill. Mr. Black and Decker is a bit too much.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Hmm. Why would any woman use the name of a man who showed that nation that he didn’t care for her? Why should a nation respect her when her husband didn’t?
February 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
@Candi, if it was a waste of 20 minutes, why didn’t you stop 19 minutes ago?
February 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Just because her own campaign is doing it, doesn’t mean that it still isn’t sexism. ‘Cause goodness knows, no one ever internalizes sexism, nor do politicians ever reflect the uglier aspects of their society in their efforts to seem likable.
Singling out women by their first name is dead common. I’ve seen far too many professional rosters that read, “Smith, Ann, Ramirez, Rodgers, Nguyen, Davis.” Clinton’s campaign may have chosen to use her first name, but the campaign chose it within an existing context. That wasn’t a neutral choice, as it might have been for Harry Truman’s campaign.
Additionally, for the newscasters to go along with it is not a neutral choice, either. Last night, I noticed that the newscasters occasionally deviated from calling her “Hillary” to calling her “Mrs. Clinton,” which ALSO made me grind my teeth: she is Senator Clinton. The other candidates get called by the titles of their offices. They don’t get called “Mr. Romney” and they certainly aren’t referred to by their relationships.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I don’t think it has so much to do with her being a women as it has to do with the fact that she doesn’t really deserve our respect.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Dave S said - “She could post here and clear things up for us, but somehow I don’t think she’s as worried about it as some people are on her supposed behalf.”
Dave - I’m worried about this on behalf of every woman who is paid less than an equal male counterpart for doing the same work.
I’m worried about it for my daughter, who is very smart and beautiful and will likely frequently be judged for her appearance and gender first and her intellect second. Conversely, if a woman is too far from the female physical ideal, she gets judged for that too. How many jokes have been made about the size of Senator Clinton’s posterior? Would you ever see similar jokes about the size of a male candidate’s behind? I doubt it.
And I’m worried about every female presidential candidate who will follow Senator Clinton, because this campaign sets a precedent. I don’t like the fact that she has to market herself as ‘just call me Hillary’. I don’t like the fact that she has dropped Rodham to make herself less threatening to voters. But you’d better believe the campaign and marketing gurus who advised her to do these things know what they’re talking about, because there is still a lot of covert, and sometimes overt, sexism in our culture. While I don’t respect Senator Clinton’s choices with regards to her campaign “packaging”, I understand them and it saddens me to know that she’s probably right in doing it if she wants to win.
So yes, I think it’s inappropriate for newscasters to refer to her as Hillary in the same setting where they refer to other candidates more formally. Because even if she wants to be known as Hillary, she deserves to be treated as equal to any other candidate. And even though she wants to be called Hillary, I’m betting that if Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh were to be introduced to her, they would say “Hello, Senator Clinton” and not “Hello, Hillary.”
February 6th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
See - even her own campaign does it…why do they all hate Hillary so much…boo hoo…:-P
No seriously, I agree that it is pretty informal to continuously refer to her by her first name, but I think that’s the identity that she’s formed with the American people. Unlike George W Bush, Americans in general have had a slightly informal relationship with Clinton (see, i didn’t do it!) while her husband was in the White House, and so can’t suddenly revert to being all formal again.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
A) To separate her campaign from Bill Clinton
B) To give people the impression that she’s a real person, not a cold-hearted, diabolical, stab-you-in-the-back, lying, cheating, stealing politician
C) The newscasters are part of the Media, and they will call her whatever the Democratic party tells them to call her.
If 99% of the ads and signs say, “Hillary” on them, the dim-witted, uneducated, flock of sheep voters won’t know who to vote for if the ballot says “Clinton.”
(That was my sarcastic cynicism for the day.)
Great post!
February 6th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“So yes, I think it’s inappropriate for newscasters to refer to her as Hillary in the same setting where they refer to other candidates more formally.”
Sorry, I still don’t buy this line of “reasoning” when you don’t even mention Rudy. He was called Rudy by nearly everyone far more than he was called Giuliani.
“I’m betting that if Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh were to be introduced to her, they would say “Hello, Senator Clinton” and not “Hello, Hillary.””
Maybe. But if once they said Hello, what would Senator Hillary Clinton reply? “Hello Mr. Olbermann” “Hello Mr. Limbaugh”? Or just Keith and Rush?
For that matter - Rush has branded himself as Rush and is very nearly always called Rush by everyone. Is that a sign of disrespect?
Rush. Rudy. Hillary. That’s what they want, and people respect them by calling them that.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Thanks for pointing this out. I also noticed this and wondered why I haven’t seen this discussed, especially in the progressive political blogs.
The other commenters have mentioned lots of plausible ways it may have started. I don’t know if Mrs. Clinton started it or if the pundits or news people started it, probably a combination.
But now “Hillary” is just a meme. It rolls off the tongue and easily and quickly identifies her. Through repeated used it has been stripped any of its original connotations of respect or disrespect. Now it is a shortcut to everyone’s individual associations with and impressions of her. In other words, it doesn’t bug me so much anymore.
The only time it still bugs me is when the other Presidential candidates refer to her as “Hillary” but use last names for the others. I’ve seen this a lot in the debates. I would expect them to go out of their way to seem respectful of their opponents. They should want to remove themselves from any possibility of appearing to use racial or gender bias. (I realize that’s a lot to expect from politicians, but it describes my ideal candidate.)
At the risk of being snarky, I’d say that the “talking heads” and the mainstream media using”Hillary” doesn’t show any special disrespect toward her. They are equally disrespectful to all candidates as well as to their viewers.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I believe they did this for no other reason than to simplify identification and they didn’t want to use Hilary Clinton to lessen the amount of time it takes to identify her. In the case of w it was no where near as simple since they shared first and last names and calling him George Jr. would have sounded silly.
From a skeptic’s point of view you are working on the assumption that identifying someone by their first or last name has a significantly different level of respect conveyed. This ‘may’ have been shown through studies though I haven’t checked in regards to using titles such as Mr., Mrs., Senator, First Lady, etc. and it may have also been shown through studies in regards to first vs. last name usage but without that I personally don’t believe it is appreciable.
Also, the same argument could be made that by identifying her by her first name would tend to make people feel more intimate with her and thereby like her more. I don’t believe that either of these statements hold true to any significant degree.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Out-of-the-box thought:
What if women in anglo-saxon countries didn’t lost their surname for their husband’s?
What if she was Hillary Rodham?
Would it be easier, or harder, to strip off her surname? Rodham for President?
Personally, I guess campaigners still would suggest her to use “Hillary” to stress her gender…
Although I have some trouble thinking “Hillary, the candidate and former first lady, not the guy who climbed mount Everest”. So I always hink of her as Hillary Clinton…
February 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
@redhotrebel-that could go for almost every married guy.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Candi–
Perhaps you should supply your email address for the Plaits. Then they can get your approval prior to posting on the blog. What a timesaver!
Mrs. BA–
As a professional woman in a male-dominated field, I get this all the time. It is patently offensive. 14 years of practicing law, and people (mostly men) assume I’m the secretary. However, in this case, I applaud Hillary for turning it around to her advantage.
Also, it’s cool to post on your hubby’s blog. Happy married couples share.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
But it does not matter whether you are black man, white woman, your white male war hero, it is the ideas that should matter. All I have heard is the historic black man vs white woman to get into the white house and because of that I hope McCain wins even though the current resident of the white house has really hurt the chances of anybody from that party getting into the white house.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Enough with the politics please. Lets get back to astronomy. I hear mars is in taurus and this means that well have an economic crisis in the spring. Anyway my back is starting to hurt so im going to my chiropractor/acunpunture appointment. By the way did anyone here about the fiber cables being cut in the mideast. 3 near egypt and one in the persian gulf. I think the aliens are planning to invade. We can only hope that shirley maclaine can contact the pleiadians and help defend us against the ALPHA-DRACONIANS. Those abducting ,anal probing bastards
February 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I think Sanguinity’s point bears repeating (and a little thought): Just because a woman does it, doesn’t mean it’s not sexist.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Yikes, my bad. I thought you were female. Perhaps the “women” who assumed I was a secretary were also 14-year-old boys.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her ‘record,’ which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or ‘co-president’ - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would ‘demonize’ anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn’t even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as ‘my worst mistake.’ - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier’s radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (“Filegate”) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary’s involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open “slots” in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for ‘gross mismanagement’ and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary’s assumed duties was directing the ‘bimbo eruption squad’ and scandal defense: —- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. —- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. —- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. —- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury —- And Bill was impeached by the House. —- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, ‘I do not recall,’ ‘I have no recollection,’ and ‘I don’t know’ 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote ‘It Takes a Village,’ demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother’s clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the ‘woman card’ by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary’s husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary’s correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary’s one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume’. Sounds more like an organized crime family’s rap sheet.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Here in Australia, Hillary Clinton is referred to as that, or as Clinton - I don’t think
Cheers, Regner Trampedach
I ever heard her referred to as just Hillary, here. The US is in so many ways a
backwards country (I lived in Michigan for 5 years, and I am from Denmark).
The “Mrs. Philip Plait” style addressing is really disturbing to me and unheard of
in Denmark. In Denmark it has become the norm for women not to change their
name when getting married. My (American) wife didn’t, by the way.
Mrs. BA - good to hear your voice. I think mr. BA should count himself fortunate
with that kind of a partner - good match in brightness
February 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I’m very much with the crowd assuming this is her choice. She mostly announces as Hillary. Most presidents have made it explicit what they want to be called and the media usually goes by it. They include a wide mix of President first name, President last name, Mr last name, Ex-president, Mr President, etc. I would assume she’s requested Hillary, as it’s the name used in the campaign. Wise? No idea. I can’t imagine she didn’t do her homework/polls (I may not agree with everything she thinks, but she’s not stupid) and I imagine if she had pushed for a different title, most would have gone with it.
On the other hand, coming here I considered the naming structure very quaint. I called my teachers by their first names, no exceptions. Calling them by anything else would, if anything, express anger by being overly formal, as if switching back to last name here “So.. this is what you think *Mr Johnsson*”. I mostly call my parents by their first names, although that isn’t exactly standard. I feel in this day and age, we should be past the point where implicit respect/disrespect isn’t needed. You can say both “Go Hillary! We love you!” and “F you Mrs Clinton”. Neither will land you in jail. It’s ok to not be subtle, in fact it’s quite handy not to be - that way no one has to wonder. The naming loses it’s punch when the message is in the actual words and people are free to say them.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Mr and Mrs BA
I see why you married .
In the UK/Ireland we are bombarded with US electoral talk. Why? I know Bush is an idiot - we all do; and it kind of affects the world who gets to be US President. But I don’t really care. I live here in Ireland, and I don’t really care who governs the US.
Sky (Fox!) news want me to care because if they have a slow news month in Feb or Mar, at least they have the US elections to fall back on. They are really pressing this.
But if pushed I’ll come off the fence. I must say I prefer the Clinton candidate. She came (with her husband) to Belfast amid carnage and turbulation; when it wasn’t fashionable or cool to do so. The city is now one of the most thriving places in Europe .. she (or he) didn’t cause this - but they helped.
We don’t abandon commrades in the field in these parts - so hooray for Hillary (sorry Mrs BA) Clinton - you only find out who you can trust when you are when your’e in a tight spot - we trust the Clinton candidate.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
wow. Of all the unimportant things to be offended by! It’s her own branding!
I’m sure if they referred to her as Clinton you would complain that they’re trying to brand her as an extension of her husband.
You’re looking for patterns in static.
It’s not surprising though, the entire Hillary campaign is based on people seeing things which aren’t really there.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
please delete candi again. She is very amusing
February 6th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I don’t believe that I have in any way implied that I am a Hillary Clinton supporter or that I’ll vote for her. I am, in fact, still undecided. If Ann Coulter were running for President, I would be just as irritated if the talking heads referred to her as Ann and called all the other candidates by their full names. Although, if Ann Coulter ever got as far in a campaign as Hillary Rodham (I’ve decided that’s what I’m going to call her from now on, to show my respect for who she became without the help of her husband or her campaign advisers) I would hope that commercial interplanetary travel had been created because I would have to leave the Earth. There, I have now injected astronomy into the thread!
February 6th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I didn’t change my name either, too much work.
As for the “Hillary” stuff, isn’t that all that the conservative hate radio/tv news machines ever called her? Usually with a whiney voice and sneers on their faces. She may have just decided to run with it and is trying to turn it into a positive thing.
Candi, your posts getting deleted saved me, and probably most other people here who aren’t sock puppets, from having to scroll past them. They were very childish, to the point of being laughable. The irony here is that you didn’t earn anyone’s respect with repeating “Mrs. Phil Plait” three times and seeming to have third grade skills in writing the English language. I really don’t care who you do and who you don’t respect. Having an Internet connection doesn’t make you the center of the universe. Hey, I just put some astronomy in here!
February 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
A different perspective perhaps?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
fourth article on page.
“RNC careful not to humanize Clinton, Obama”
February 6th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
“If Ann Coulter were running for President, I would be just as irritated if the talking heads referred to her as Ann and called all the other candidates by their full names. Although, if Ann Coulter ever got as far in a campaign as Hillary Rodham (I’ve decided that’s what I’m going to call her from now on, to show my respect for who she became without the help of her husband or her campaign advisers”
1) Unlikely she’d be called Ann. Most likely Ms. Coulter, or Ann Coulter, since that’s how she’s currently referred to. Unless…
2) She ran as Ann. Then she probably would. Or if they were trying to be insulting by calling her Ann when she didn’t want to be - like calling Mitt Romney “Willard”. In fact, many who wish to insult Barack Obama do not do it by calling him by his last or first name, but his whole name - Barack Hussein Obama. Bottom line is, people show respect by calling you as you’ve asked to be called. They show disrespect by calling you something else.
3) I believe Hillary Clinton would be displeased at you calling her Hillary Rodham - that’s a sign you don’t respect her choice to take her husband’s last name, and you are insulting her husband. She has requested, legally, to be called First Name Hillary Last Name Clinton. By calling her other than her requested name - you diminish her husband, her marriage and her choice.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I agree - we should all refer to her as Rodham, even if she doesn’t want us to, doesn’t refer to herself that way, and it hurts her chances of getting elected.
We’ve got to be fair about this!
February 6th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
# cephynon 06 Feb 2008 at 5:23 pm
Bottom line is, people show respect by calling you as you’ve asked to be called. They show disrespect by calling you something else.
QFT
February 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Her own campaign refers to her as Hillary, AND the media is dripping with blatant sexism (my readings indicate Chris Matthews as the epicenter).
The two are not mutually contradictory, and the evidence of sexism is well-supported apart from the choice of how to refer to her. It’s both/and, not either/or.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Would everyone just cool it?
It dosn’t matter who wins what election. 20,000 years ago (geological blink of the eye), the place where I’m writing this was under 1/2 mile of ice. 20,000 years from now, if not sooner, (’nother blink of the eye) it will likely enough be under 1/2 mile of ice again.
And we’ll all be dead. And our children will be dead. And our children’s. children … you get the point?
Elections, or non-elections, are frivilous nonsense. It’s better to live in a democracy - but ultimately its not worth falling out over.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Nihilism ‘08
February 6th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I tend to refer to them as Hillary or Barack- though I refer to the Republicans by their second names. I think it’s because I like the Democrats a bit more.
(”Mrs BA”? I suppose it’s better than the “Bad Wife”.)
February 6th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Candi,
You called Dr. Plait an “evil man,” described him as “pussy-whipped,” and then suggested Mrs. Plait start a “femi-nazi” site. I’m going to assume that was the main reason why your posts were deleted. I doubt they were deleted because she doesn’t want to be disagreed with. Check out the dozens of other comments that do just that and still remain.
But meh, what do I know.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
That’s very interesting — it reminds me of what I read in the newspaper sometimes: they say that Hillary Clinton is in the running to be the first “female US president” and that Barack Obama is in the running to be the first “US black president”. I wonder why the word “female” gets to come before “US”, but not “black”. Hmmm….
February 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I’m reminded of a newsgroup thread where a woman, after carefully lecturing me about stating my opinions without couching them in “in my opinion”-type language, proceeded to declare, without qualification, that the word “chick” is insulting to women (the discussion began with references to “chick flick”, as a movie that appeals mostly to women).
No one woman is qualified to state what is and is not insulting or disrepectful to women in general. Referring to Hillary Rodham Clinton as “Hillary” is her idea, and it’s disrespectful of *you* to suggest that her chosen appellation is inappropriate when used by others.
What you’re doing is *exactly* the same thing as someone insisting on calling you Mrs. Phil Plait, despite your choice to not adopt his last name. It is, after all, a common type of formal address for married women. Who are you to buck the trend and decide what other people should call you?
If Senator Clinton wants me to refer to her as Hillary… Well, actually, I refer to her as Clinton in conversation, as a force of habit. I’m not arrogant enough to demand that everyone else does so as well, especially considering that she’s made her choice clear.
On the whole, I’ve certainly seen a fair amount of subtle and not-so-subtle sexism in the media, but using her first name is not an example of it.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I’ve had the same reaction. It seems less respectful. When I blog about her, I always refer to her by her last name unless I’m discussing both Clintons.
I’m glad to know I’m not the only one who noticed!
February 6th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Folks-
Please don’t respond to obvious trolls. I know how hard it is to resist! But I will mark any trollish comment as spam. That is clearly what we’re dealing with here. I learned many many years ago to simply delete and move on.
As for the topic at hand: If Huckabee decided to call himself “Huck” on the campaign trail, then I would still expect the media to call him Mr. Huckabee or simply Huckabee. No mater how the candidates brand themselves to the public, the media need to be removed from such things. They’re supposed to be independent, though of course that notion is fairly laughable now.
I agree with my wife. While this is not a critical issue, I think it bears thought. Not every political post need to cut to the heart of a matter, but this one does indeed, IMO, reflect a problem with our media and our society. It’s worth pointing out.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Dear Mr. BA and Mrs. BA,
With all due respect to the fact that this is your blog, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill over something that really is not important.
People earn the respect of those that know them. Using the person’s first name neither diminishes nor enhances that respect. The name that a person uses to refer to a public figure reflects their personal level of respect for that public figure. Hillary is treated no worse and no better than the others in the race.
I think that your comments on the issue of a woman taking a man’s last name are far more worthy of discussion. In my opinion, the use of Ms. and the failure to take the man’s last name show a profound lack of respect for the partnership of marriage.
Regards,
Stan/Tx
February 6th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Wife of the BA,
What is wrong with a person deciding for themselves what they want to be referred to? She made a choice for herself. I seriously doubt that her own campaign would do that had she not given the blessing.
Part of conducting a political campaign is more than adressing issues, answering questions, shaking hands and hugging babies. A good part of a campaign is building brand awareness. It’s the same reason that Coke continues to advertise. They’re not trying to to reach new customers they’re trying to make sure that their ad is in your mind when you hit the store. The same is true for politicians. They want to make sure that when you see that ballot you see their name above all. Part of that is establishing a unique identity and making sure that for whatever reason that candidate stands out. Sadly, not everyone pays attention to what the candidates say, where their position on issues lie and how they’ve performed on the debates. Name recognition is KEY.
I would also like to poist to you that sometime men are judged by physical appearance as well, not just women. Now, do women often times get paid less for the same job as some men. Yes. It’s a crime in my mind and in this day and age a horrid injustice. But women aren’t the only ones discriminated against. When I graduated from college with a degree in electrical engineering, I was specifically told by the career placement people that I was not allowed to interview for IBM because of their “unwritten rule of not hiring overweight college graduates. Pork out as much as you want AFTER you get hired, but don’t have bigger then a 36 waist in that interview.”
Just remember that perception is truth in matters such as this. You see it as demeaning. That is your perception and your truth. Maybe many other women feel it is empowering. That is their perception and their truth. I would never suppose to tell you how to think, and it’s obvious you are someone who thinks for them self and I doubt the BA would have wanted to have you as his domestic partner HAD you been one to let others decide for you. I respect your decisions on how you wish to be addressed. Please give her the same due. Perhaps she feels that any negative of the public using her first name in referring her will be made up for when your daughter gets to see her ascend to the podium in congress as “Madame President” and deliver the first State of the Union address, and truly realize that door is open to her as well.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I think how the media refers to Ms. Clinton is the least of the problems when you think about how she is depicted on the internet. The following link is an excellent discussion of how vicious ignorant people can be.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12072007/watch.html
February 6th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Stan/TX has just jumped up and down on one of my biggest buttons and I can’t resist responding.
He said: I think that your comments on the issue of a woman taking a man’s last name are far more worthy of discussion. In my opinion, the use of Ms. and the failure to take the man’s last name show a profound lack of respect for the partnership of marriage.
That is the most specious argument on this topic. OK - I’ll grant you that marriage is a partnership. So a woman changes her name, and now becomes Mrs. Joe Blow, thereby declaring in writing that she is Joe Blow’s life partner. When Joe Blow signs his name as Mr. Joe Blow, what is that communicating about his marital status? - NOTHING
The historical reason for a woman to take her husband’s name is to show that she now belongs to him. His family paid good money, or gave their best cow, or whatever, to the bride’s family and BOUGHT her. When men are willing to take the same hyphenated name or blended name as their wife - McIntyre and Brown become McBrown?
then a true partnership will be communicated.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I noticed this a while ago, but the people who truly dislike her refer to her as Mrs. Clinton.
With that being said, I think you are making a mountain out of the Grand Canyon. All the websites that are connected to her campaign refer to her as Hillary. One of them is even called Votehillary.org. All of her merchadise says “Hillary for President.” You can’t buy or get anything with Hillary Clinton or Senator Clinton on it. The videos on her site refer to her as Hillary. Her own media folks refer to her as Hillary. Everything connected to her uses Hillary.
A little research would show you that she used this same approach when she ran for the Senate in 2006. It was “Hillary for U.S. Senate”
It’s her style.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Stan/Tx said: “In my opinion, the use of Ms. and the failure to take the man’s last name show a profound lack of respect for the partnership of marriage.”
You have that exactly backwards. If it’s a partnership, then why must the woman take the man’s name? A partnership implies equality. Therefore neither should take the other’s name, or they should both take a new name, or they can hyphenate.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I love you pooky!
February 6th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Mrs BA (if that’s your real name) I agree with your opinion and more importantly your right to it. This would not even be an issue if media outlets would simply re-instate proper style guides for columnists and commentators in addition to field journalists. You are spot on in your opinion that media, despite the requests of individuals, employ respectful and NON FAMILIAL language when mentioning any persons in the news. It lends an air of neutrality and objectivity. Oh hang on, thats not really important anymore is it.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
oh btw I love you too pooky hahahahahahaha
February 6th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Shame on you Dennis, don’t you know I’m married? Of course, I can’t be very committed to my marriage because I didn’t take my husband’s name.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Much more worrisome: Why do Americans always talk about “Galileo” when that man was named “Galileo Galilei”, Galilei being the familiy name? No ones talks about “Johannes” when it comes to Kepler or “Isaac” when it comes to Newton.
Explanations welcome!
February 6th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I looked at Mrs’ photo and then Phil’s, on the right. Either there’s a power imbalance in the universe, or (face it) Phil, you scored.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Dear Mrs. BA,
Thank you for you kind reply. However, I prefer the image of the bride’s family paying a dowry to get rid of her.
I ran this issue by Mrs. Stan/Tx, who feels the Ms. title is a waste of time, and she told me to drop the subject.
While I do not disagree with your point of the hyphenated name approach, it could get a little strange after a few generations. Besides women seem to know instinctively if a man is married while men such as myself (an engineer) need all the help we can get to distinguish the married from the unmarried.
Regards,
Stan/Tx
February 6th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
You’re going to hate this Stan/Tx, but guess what? I don’t wear a wedding ring either. Egads!!! I’m completely lacking in any of the trappings of ownership. BTW - I happen to agree about the Ms. title, although I think it has a purpose since Miss signifies unmarried and Mrs. signifies married, but there are no corresponding prefixes for a man. I’ve been trying for years to think of some alternative prefix that would work for any female - married or not - and be equivalent to Mr. Anyone have any thoughts?
February 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Yeah, why not just go with the person’s name. I’m more than happy to be known as Rick Kopp. I don’t need Mr and my wife of thirty years has said repeatedly that she doesn’t need Mrs. Why bother with the honorific? Of course, if someone is a medical or dental doctor, or like pooky (sorry I couldn’t resist) has a PhD, they could, if they want use Dr.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Ms. works fine. I’ve gotten used to it and it doesn’t bother me. It’s the exact equivalent of Mr.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Wow this is a hot topic! Mrs BA needs her own blog!
February 6th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I can’t help chiming in on the last name issue. In general, I have no problem with either choice, so long as it’s a choice the woman makes.
However, what about children? Do they get the father’s last name, the mother’s, or a hyphenated version? If the latter, what happens when they get married? Do their children get even more hyphens? Or do we begin a practice of decoupling last names from ancestry, and make up new ones for the kids?
Back on the original topic, after a bit more thought, I’m more convinced that “Mrs. BA” is in the wrong here. Candidates are usually referred to by a single moniker, without salutations. All we’re talking about is whether that one moniker is a first name or a last name. Hillary Clinton has chosen to be “Hillary”. The rest are their last names by default. When she’s actually addressed, it’s as “Senator Clinton” or “Mrs. Clinton”, with quite proper respect - never (that I’ve seen) as “Hillary”.
I’m going to ask her campaign to see if I can get an actual answer about what she thinks.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I think Ms. is fine, except that in the past it’s gotten a bad rap from anti-feminists and it seems to me it’s often used with a tiny note or condescension or derision. I guess I should just get over that and wave my feminist flag high. I actually do try not to be an femi-Nazi. When I was younger I’d tell anyone and everyone that I didn’t take my husband’s name and they shouldn’t either. A little age and seasoning have taught me that you catch more flies with honey…
February 6th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Well, it’s simply not true that men don’t have an equivalent difference in salutations. It’s just fallen out of common use, for reasons that are probably obvious. An unmarried man is Master. A married man is Mister.
I dislike Ms. simply because of how it sounds. It’s impossible to not sound snooty when saying it. I’m in favor of dispensing with marital-specific salutations altogether. Keep Mister for men, and Miss for women.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Ms BA- well there’s yer problem. You (and society) have allowed the extreme right to ‘outlaw’ another perfectly good word. (cf. people’s reluctance to describe themselves as liberals, socialists or being against CEO’s pulling down 10’s of millions of dollars for fear of being branded as Stalinists.)
Also- you associate the word ‘Ms.’ with being a ‘femi-Nazi’. I know you’re joking, but it does show how effectively Limbaugh and his ilk have redefined language in this country.
You could come up with an alternative to ‘Ms.’, but it will be demonized in exactly the same way.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I suspect the “Hillary” thing is a marketing matter more than anything else, specifically brand differentiation. You can bet her campaign spend many thousands on marketing and focus groups and test advertising, deciding whether to use “Clinton”, “Hillary”, both, or even the full married name. Come to think of it, “Rodham Clinton” would do the job, but most people think of her (positively and negatively) as “Hillary”.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Just out of interest, what do you do with mail addressed to Mrs. Philip Plait?
My opinions:
- I’m fine with “Ms” being the equivalent of “Mr”. Although, in many circumstances, you could ask why we need to make the distinction?
- People will pick up on what other people are doing. If HC’s campaign exclusively uses the name “Hillary”, so will others. I don’t see anything sinister there. (Disclaimers: not American, not a TV-owner
February 6th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Reminds me of an awful long time ago when the pediatrician wife of a good friend of my father, last name, believe it or not, Smith, and her husband would go out, they referred to themselves as “Doctor and Mister Smith”
This was perhaps 40 years ago and definately turned some heads. Rapidly.
I congratulate you on your choices, both BAs, but recognise that the history of our society makes such references difficult at best. It is a learning curve that manages to take many generations. But the language will change - gradually.
There are certainly other ramifications that go along with your choices, none of which are appropriate for here, that intrigue me - but again, convention generally intervenes.
Something like the corruption of the term “Adult” - but that was a different thread
JC
February 6th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Drat it all - I forgot to add to the above. I was actually thinking EXACTLY that today, listening to many of the Tuesday returns. The Pres of the station I listen to (wamc) ALMOST always referred to her “properly” (Chartock is kind of known for that) but no one else did. I found myself thinking precisely as you have stated here.
And I rapidly recognised the futility in it. Sigh.
JC
February 6th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I definitely find “Hillary” disturbing simply because she has a shot at the presidency, but it has nothing in the world to do with anything from her sex to the color of her eyes.
She is nothing this country hasn’t already suffered: An expansionist, big-government, socio-democrat. Big money, advertising, lobbyists…say it with me now: “CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!”
I find the majority of party politics disturbing. Ideally, it shouldn’t matter so much who the president even is, let alone the fact that their female, black, left-handed, near-sighted, or likes sugar in their coffee…
I’d like to see the power of the presidency reduced. It always goes sour when any one person has too much authority.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Rush Limbaugh makes a point of referring to her either by her full name or as Mrs. Clinton. I think that it is telling that the right-wing talk show host would make a point of this, but that the major networks (water carriers for the Democrat party, all) simply refer to her as Hillary. Perhaps they want us to ignore the negative connotations associated with her last name.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Stuart - any mail addressed to Mrs. Philip Plait is torn into little itty bitty pieces and then burned, unless there’s the chance it may contain a check (like from my grandmother, before she passed away.)
February 6th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
…”Miss signifies unmarried and Mrs. signifies married, but there are no corresponding prefixes for a man.”
Since we’re on a trivial topic anyhow, I figure I may as well put my two cents in about the above incorrect statement. An unmarried man is “master”, a married man is “mister”. Yeah, it’s archaic, but there you go.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
As a Republican I have no love for Mrs. Clinton however if you read many of the personal accounts from current and former friends she is said to be kind funny and even charming in small groups or one on one. But when she get on stage she turns to stone. I think she has gotten better has time goes on but she still can’t hold a candle to Mr. Obama as an orator. I have to agree with most of the comments that this was most likely an idea by her campaign to try to make feel more comfortable with her and to take away some of the Clinton ties.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
A quick check through the headlines at MSNBC just a few minutes ago shows that on the more formal headlines they pretty consistently refer to all of the candidates by their last name or title and last name. I wouldn’t read too much into the MSNBC commentators calling the Senator ‘Hillary’ for the reasons stated above (her own campaigns branding etc…).
In the case of Chris Matthews he is a huge fan of politics in general, if not a full blown ‘political junkie’ and is more than likely pretty darn well connnected to most of the candidates, esp. the Democrats. He has on occasion handed his show over to his wife in a manner very similar to a certain Astronomer we know, and judging from the fact that his wife was pretty damn brilliant and successful, I really doubt he would be at all disturbed by a female president.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Has anyone talked to a linguist about this? Or read any linguist blogs (if such things exist)? This is exactly the kind of issue linguists study and some probably have already studied this exact issue.
I recall my linguistics teacher talking about something like this when I took a class back in college 12 years ago. At that time, it was about using “Mr” vs. “President” vs first name for Democrat vs Republican candidates. Apparently there are slight differences depending on the media source (e.g. Fox vs. CNN).
To the family BA: have you consulted any linguists at any of the schools you’ve worked at about why the media (and the candidate herself) choose to go by her first name? Personal opinions aside, I’m sure there’s scholarly reading that can be done about this.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Mrs. BA, you wrote in your initial blog post: (emphasis mine)
“The ONLY REASON I can come up with for the inappropriately familiar use of “Hillary” alone is that she’s a woman. I don’t want to think that’s the cause, but I CAN’T THINK OF ANY OTHER REASON.”
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
“Quite commonly, the argument from personal incredulity is used in combination with some evidence in an attempt to sway opinion towards a preferred conclusion. Here too, it is a logical fallacy to the degree that the personal incredulity is offered as further “evidence.” In such an instance, the person making the argument has inserted a personal bias in an attempt to strengthen the argument for acceptance of her or his preferred conclusion.”
You later added:
“It doesn’t matter what her website and bumper stickers say… [i]t is [not] appropriate for them [to] call her Hillary simply because she wants them to.”
So what SHE wants or desires is irrelevant? All you seem to care about (if this quote is to be taken seriously) are the finer points of courtesy and respect? Consciousness raising is one thing — and I’m all for it when it comes to sexual equality — but sheesh!
Here is what I propose: Let Hillary Clinton decide what Hillary Clinton wants.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I’m fairly certain that journalists did not refer to Eisenhower as “Ike” in news stories or radio jounalism, even though his campaign used the nickname almost universally.
Now, the rules for the society pages are different, and some public interest (read: informationless tripe for the functionally illiterate) stories try to make a point of familiarity, as do many interviewers.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I haven’t read through all of the comments here and others may have already suggested this, but I suspect her campaign encourages the use of “Hillary” in order to create a unique image, one that is independent of her husband’s.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
SirJonah - you’re completely missing the point, but I’m too tired to explain it again. I’m going to bed. Good night and thanks to everyone for their input. You have made me consider some new ideas and reconsider some old ones, which is never a bad thing.
Reading all your comments has been frustrating, infuriating, entertaining, exhausting, enlightening and surprising. My thanks to the BA for allowing me to stand on his soapbox for a brief time and to all of you for being so ready, willing and able to knock me off of it. I have a new respect for bloggers - it’s a tough job!
Sincerely,
The Former Amateur Blogger But Still Current Bad Wife
February 6th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Okay, I can see the not-changing-name thing, although my wife and I are more traditionalists, I guess you could say. The not-wearing-ring thing has me completely baffled, though. My wife and I each wear identical wedding bands that identify each of us as “married”. How is that in any way unequal or “trappings of ownership”?
February 6th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I would suggest that it’s her campaign’s attempt to psychologically put distance between her campaign and her husband in the public’s mind.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
You are 100% correct, Mrs. BA. It is disrespectful and it is intentional. Go back to newscasts during the W’s attack on Iraq, when the press sprouted epaulets and were cheering the misguided effort on. The talking heads referred to Hussein as “Saddam.” They did not refer to Bush as “George.” It was intentional diminution.
You are not crazy or paranoid. Or making a mountain out of a molehill, or whatever else the commenters are throwing at you.
Your analysis is spot on!
(For the record, I support Barack Obama.)
February 6th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Mrs. BA wrote:
“SirJonah - you’re completely missing the point, but I’m too tired to explain it again. I’m going to bed.”
Nice dodge… you’re entitled to your sleep, but what point exactly did I miss? Out of respect to you and your husband, I carefully read and understood everything you wrote on this page.
I take it you meant to say that you’re, “too tired to properly address my valid criticisms.” Suffice it to say, I am skeptical that there is anything you need to explain to me again.
I hate to say it, but… I find your logic wanting and your debating style disappointing. The irony is, I probably don’t differ too much from you or your husband politically.
Sweet dreams.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Well said! There is a definite underlying message. What is this The 50’s? We girls shouldn’t be worrying our pretty little heads about Politics because that’s Mans work ? ; )
February 6th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I guess I don’t read any significance into the Hillary moniker whatsoever. The fact that there are several non-gender-bias reasons to explain the frequent use of the Hillary moniker makes this a complete non-issue, unless one is looking for something to call an issue. Call me a skeptic!
If you look at the only marginal precedent from this country’s past, when Geraldine Ferraro ran as the first-ever female vice presidential candidate, there was absolutely no pattern in the media of referring to her as “Geraldine”. In fact, I had to strain to remember her first name, but I certainly can easily remember her last! And this is from a couple of decades ago when gender-bias issues were undeniably deeper than they are now.
I agree that gender bias exists and is a real and serious issue, and although in general things are slowly improving, we still have a long way to go. But we should focus on the more credible gender-bias issues, and not make an issue out of curiousities of circumstance.
Well, I think I’ll go listen to Paul, John, Ringo and George for a bit before Conan comes on tonight. I loves me some diminutive entertainers!
Call me a skeptic …
February 6th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
“I’m fairly certain that journalists did not refer to Eisenhower as “Ike” in news stories or radio jounalism, even though his campaign used the nickname almost universally.”
You seem to have misspelled the phrase, “I’m guessing wildly that”. What you wrote looks like “I’m fairly certain that”.
In reality, newspapers were replete with headlines saying Ike this and Ike that. Some actual examples:
“Ike Landslide”
“French Give Ike Rousing Welcome”
“Ike Says Nixon Can’t Stand Pat” (double-meaning on that one)
“World Mourns Ike” (on his death)
I’m glad you brought Eisenhower up. It’s an excellent counter-example to the claim of “Hillary” being sexist.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Uh- perhaps this isn’t the place for accusing the blogger of breaking various logical fallacies in such a direct manner.
The BA is a professional blogger who must have the skin of a rhinoceros by now, but Mrs. BA is an AMATEUR who isn’t here to have her skeptic credentials deconstructed and torn to shreds.
Is it too much for people to give the Mrs BA the benefit of the doubt given that it’s her first blog?
I swear- some people give skepticism a bad name. We should all remain skeptical, but at the same time we have to remember that people are entitled to their opinions without getting hammered over the head with a list of supposed fallacies they’ve committed.
I know the BA excoriates the gullible and foolish on a daily basis, but his targets are generally people in the news who make very public declarations of their idiocy (e.g. Huckabee)- which is rather different than naming and shaming the guy next door (for instance) if he makes a physics mistake.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:03 am
[…] BA writes: Has anyone else noticed that newscasters and commentators seem to feel it is perfectly […]
February 7th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Ms. BA:
“The only reason I can come up with for the inappropriately familiar use of “Hillary” alone is that she’s a woman. I don’t want to think that’s the cause, but I can’t think of any other reason.”
Look at Hillary’s posters, her mugs, her bumper stickers, and the title bar of her website and her name in almost every single story on her website - it all says “Hillary”. No “Clinton”, no “Hillary Clinton”, just “Hillary”.
So you are blaming the media and the public for using the name that she has chosen for herself and her campaign? How unfair is that?
Your post is so unfair that it calls for an apology and a retraction.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:51 am
This may be slightly off topic, but is Hillary a female?? I can not rcall any pics of her in a lady’s attire such as a dress or skirt. Ann Coulter wouldn’t have that problem.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Christian X Burnhamon 06 Feb 2008 at 11:57 pm wrote:
“Uh- perhaps this isn’t the place for accusing the blogger of breaking various logical fallacies in such a direct manner… Is it too much for people to give the Mrs BA the benefit of the doubt given that it’s her first blog?”
Treat her with kid gloves, you mean? Handle her like a fragile doll, so to speak? Let’s not upset her? Don’t you get the impression from this woman that that is the direct opposite of what she would like or expect from us? Are we going to treat HER with respect or not?
***
And one more thing before I too get some much needed sleep… it occurred to me that she may also be suffering from a bit of confirmation bias. Note this:
“I was watching MSNBC’s coverage of Super Tuesday and in the hour that I watched I heard Senator Clinton referred to as Hillary at least 30 times by a dozen different commentators ranging from conservative to liberal. Barack Obama was called “Barack” once and every other candidate was referred to by their last name or their full name. I find this troubling. Does anyone else see the problem here?”
One hour? On one channel? Does this seem like a paltry data set to anyone else? Because… she extrapolates what she observed on one channel in one hour to all “the talking heads on television and radio.”
Now, she MAY be making a valid point… but…
To put this into a way that her husband would appreciate — and I mean this with the greatest sincerity and respect that I can — perhaps she “submitted her results for peer-review” too soon.
IF she had recorded the majority of Super Tuesday on at least two channels (say MSNBC and FOXNEWS or CNN) and then meticulously took note of how many times Senator Clinton was referred to as “Hillary” versus “Clinton” or “Hillary Clinton” as well as the other candidates, then maybe we could have had a constructive back and forth about something that wasn’t just an anecdote… something we simply had to have faith she heard… we could have been able to check her data and conduct our own experiments.
Maybe she IS onto something here?
But I think it’s pointless to even begin the debate without ever correctly demonstrating it.
How can she be sure it isn’t confirmation bias or some other factor that is skewing the outcome? Did she watch for the entire hour even?
Now, if she would like to limit the conversation ONLY to the merits of ANYONE calling Hillary Clinton “Hillary” instead of using her full name, and whether or not this conflicts with Hillary Clinton’s own wishes… then that would be fine.
But she didn’t limit it to that. She made a lot more sweeping claims. And on this blog of all blogs. Yes she is Phil’s wife… yes it was her first article…but is that a good enough excuse?
What happened to equality? She posed a question — an argument — and we have responded in a plurality of ways.
She claimed above that she welcomes that, sincerely or not.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Master? Mister? I didn’t know. From now on address me as Mr (sans full stop) and um, uh, with a slight roll of the “r” to distinguish it from “Myrrh”.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Wayne- wearing a wedding ring brands both you and your wife as married. There’s still ownership implied, in your case it just works on both sides. From the sounds of things, the BA clan is likely ringless on both sides.
The sailent point for me is that there’s a professional standard for this, AND a polite company standard for this. Our guest blogger makes this point nicely when she asserts that face-to-face, few people meeting Senator Clinton for the first time would call her “Hillary” instead of “Senator” or “Mrs. Clinton.” If they are not yet on familiar terms with her, it does not matter if she brands herself “Lord of the Sith,” they should still call her by her formal name.
I myself am a woman who happily changed my name when I got married and I wear a wedding ring FWIW. I much prefer alignment to my new tribe than my old one. I changed my first name too, in fact, and prefer Ms. to Mrs. if I had to pick. It’d be just as inappropriate to call me by my maiden name, I think, as it is for our guest blogger to be called “Mrs. Philip Plait.”
February 7th, 2008 at 3:18 am
I am surprised to see this allegation in a blog known for promoting research:
“I’m worried about this on behalf of every woman who is paid less than an equal male counterpart for doing the same work.”
It’s a canard that isn’t true, especially over time in the evaluation of careers.
And my wife took my last name as a convenience of current social custom. While there are those who would question her, should she have chosen not to endorse her affiliation with me in so obvious a matter, it remains that the custom is there. Break with it if you wish, and on course, deal with the added bother of explanation to everyone.
Peter Drucker has made a fortune explaining how expertise in one field, and association, do not convey expertise to others. Obviously, the HRC unit wishes to be known as “Hillary”.
Obviously. What more was there to say?
February 7th, 2008 at 4:01 am
You know, it always sounds as something a bit dated, that use of using only father’s surname and women losing thier surname to husband’s…
Here in Spain (and in all spanish countries, actually), people has been using two surnames, father’s first and mother’s first, since always. And since 15 years ago, parents can choose in which order (father’s + mother’s or mother’s + father’s) will go the surnames of their children, limited by the change being permanent and that all siblings must use the surnames in the same order. And even single mothers carry both their surnames to their sibilings.
It’s shocking how the culture from which was born “machismo” has got to achieve such an egalitarian solution to the matter of surnames. I don’t think it had an egalitarian purpose in the beginning, but now it’s this way and makes anglo-saxon customs look outdated and very, very unfair to women. Not only the children will only carry the father’s surname as if mother played no role (!), but, women will not even keep their surname if they as much as marry! It’s unfair!
Strikes me as wrong that Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton are mother and daughter and not sisters, or that Chelsea Clinton will lose her “presidental” surname if she ever marries. It’s not right and it’s not fair…
February 7th, 2008 at 4:52 am
To repeat everyone else, she’s labelled herself that, so it’s no surprise everyone else uses it. She’s another Clinton, so that’s another reason, and as for Bush, well his first name was also George so they couldn’t call him “George” to get out of it, so W, W Bush, George W, and George W Bush all got tossed around. All they had was the middle name to differentiate him.
One other angle to consider is that Clinton isn’t really her birth name so hey maybe she herself has other reasons. Hard to say, though I’d go with image over personal reasons any day considering the nature of politics.
I’m also not really of the “first name means no respect” school of thought. It really just depends on the person. I’ve never been one for honorifics, but I do try to oblige those who make a point about it to me.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:52 am
As for using first names historically. Napoléon was known as Napoléon not Bonaparte even though his full name was Napoléon Bonaparte.
In Japan…as I understand, they sometimes put the family name before the first name. Thus, Clinton Hillary.
But if evidence suggests that using Hillary as opposed to Clinton is sex based…then males need to understand we’re not in middle ages anymore. Thus, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the correct term. Or just plain Clinton.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Why is women can only talk about women? I saw it coming from a mile away. When I see a woman comic I know what her material is going to be, when I see a woman politician I know what her material is going to be. A whole country does not need a president who is only interested in half of it, and will spit on the other half. A country needs a president who will server everyone irregardless of their race or gender.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:57 am
John Williams –
You forgot to mention that Senator Clinton instigated the Holocaust, helped Stalin and Mao rise to power, and is controlling your thoughts with radio signals.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Personally, it strikes me as disrespective when journalists refer to people simply by their last name as well. Statements such as , “Today Bush signed a bill into law” seem disrespectful to me. Is it too difficult to include the person’s title? “President” or simply “Mr.” would suffice. The only person who should call you by your last name is your Boot Camp Drill Instructor….of course lack of respect is intended when (s)he does it!
February 7th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Oops…that should have been disrespectFUL. I don’t think disrespective is a real word.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Mrs BA said: “I didn’t change my name when I got married”.
I did…..
February 7th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Both patrilineal descent and matrilineal descent could be regarded as sexist. In my SF which takes place a few centuries from now, I have Earth people using matri-patrilineal descent — the girls take their mother’s last name and the boys take their father’s. That’s simpler than the Spanish method.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:10 am
You can notice this in tennis as well where male players are more commonly referred to by their last name whereas the female players are more commonly referred to by their first names.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Gosh, lots and lots of comments… No time to read them all now.
We don’t get much coverage of the American electioneering over here, thank goodness. Well, except when one of the candidates cheats.
This is a point that I had not been aware of. It reminds me of 1979 when Margaret Thatcher became the first female Prime Minister. IIRC, all of the newscasters called her “Mrs Thatcher” or used her full name. (She is, of course, now Baroness Thatcher). She was (is?) quite a stern character. I cannot envisage anyone ever calling her “Margaret”.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Oh, yeah, and that’s a very cool photo. Did Phil (sorry, Dr Plait) take it?
February 7th, 2008 at 6:52 am
In my SF which takes place a few centuries from now, I have Earth people using matri-patrilineal descent — the girls take their mother’s last name and the boys take their father’s.
Which is what they currently do in Iceland, interestingly enough.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Dunc,
You beat me to the post. I was just about to say that.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Said somebody far up thread :
“… she is the first person you think of when someone says Hillary…”
Not me.
I think of the conqueror of Mt Everest - Sir Edmund Hillary.
Ed Minchau wrote :
“An unmarried man is “master”, a married man is “mister”. Yeah, it’s archaic, but there you go.”
No, an unmarried man is a -batchelor_, a married one is the Master of his wife - in theory & by the Biblical-Talmudic-Quranic code ..
A Master is sometimes considered a higher rank than many others .. It was even used as the name of the arch-villain in ‘Dr Who’ and implies Mastery or superiority .. Odd then, thats its always the formal designiation for underling -child-unmarried as well.
& Maybe it should be “Caught-her” not “Missed-her!” for married chaps!
Oh dear! The feminist implications there, the PC violations, the horror …
As someone so accurately put it : Sheeesh!
Its what she seems to wish to be called - so why not?
Who knows maybe as some one also noted already she’s setting the groundwork for being the first female President & the first President~ess to get divorced in office!
Sorry Mrs BA, but it seems to me this is a minor issue - about on a par with noting that someone so lacking in imagination and so overstuffed in ego as to name their son with their own first name is hardly fit to be President.
Still, I do have one solution :
Lets just go for the Aussie solution and call all of them (Male & female alike) “Maa-aate!”
February 7th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Well, she’s about to be “disrespected” all the way into office.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Someone using a “lolcats” title bemoaning the lack of respect. Priceless.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:36 am
WARNING POST CONTAINS POLITICAL HUMOUR !
———————————————-
Hmmn.. lets try a test discussion - its pretty clear who’s who ain’t it ..
———————————–
Reporter : Maate, what’s your policy on invading other nations!
PresCan* 1 : Well maaate it just depends on this; do they do what we say? If so we don’t invade ‘me if not we do ..
Reporter :So Maaate not too much change from the previous maaates policy what about you?
PresCan 2 : Uhh , mate no, they’e got to be Christian, Christian I tells ya! Gawd said we gotta convert ourselves these heathen blighters so’z they follow exactly the loving words of da Loorrrd Cheez-us & teh not-so loving dicates of our unchecked capitalism. If they’ve Muslim or godless atheists or whatever, we bomb them back to the stone-age and take all their oil because of course we peace-loving peoples have the right to bring them the word of Our Alllll miiiigtyhy Gawd! Gawd hisself tole me dat …
Reporter : & finally its our sheila maate’s turn here what d’ y’reckon?
PresCan 3 : Well, as one part of team ‘Billary’ I’m going to consult my hubby on that one, maaate!
Voice from audience : America - DOOMED!
Yep that works!
—–
* Presidential candidate after the fashion of ascan for Astronaut candidate!
February 7th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Beyond the obvious fact of her campaign marketing, I think there may be a sexist (perhaps subconscious) reason for it, but not in the way being implied here. It’s very, very common for guys to be referred to by their last name even by close friends. Sports broadcasts are a good example. There’s been times in my life, especially in high school and college, where I would barely respond if someone called me by my first name, because all my friends primarily used my last name or another nickname. Some of my friends in college didn’t even know my first name for quite a long time. It is very rare for women and girls to do the same. Groups of female friends, virtually without exception, use first names when referring to each other. Sports may actually be part of the reason for the difference, since women’s sports haven’t been very prevalent until the past 20 years or so, and the use of last names is so engrained in sports and by extension with men.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:51 am
On a slightly related matter - One problem I see in the US culture & politics generally is the excessive respect paid to Presidents.
The office is probably given a bit too much pomp and worship and should perhaps be made lose some of that.
In Oz here we’ve just seen a new PM voted in - using the slogan Kevin 07 for Kevin Rudd. That’s first name - kevin.
I have some sympathy for feminism & feminists but I do think a lot of this politically correct language obsession is absurd and counter-productive - it makes it easy to ridicule feminism and its really got to be a bit well .. silly.
In French (& I think German, Spainish and other European languages too) various objects are given genders ‘male-female & neutral’. Are tehymore or less sexist nations for this?
Sometimes things like getting all aire-ated about ‘actress’ or ‘waitress’ or chair’ vs ‘chairperson’ versus ‘chairman’ and suchlike (incl. this case) just tend make people hostile, frustrated and actually makes it harder to get the serious points of feminism across.
A rose by any other name …
A president (or presidentess!) by any other name …
Then again, I suppose if their name was changed to Hitler or Mr Antichrist or suchlike .. yeah, that could have negative effects.
Its pyschology really & if Hillary wants Hillary as opposed to Hillary Rodham, Hillary Clinton or whatever as her public nom de utility then who are we to tell her she’s wrong?
February 7th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I listened to a show on NPR that was discussing this issue. At first I was with you, it didn’t seem fair. Then it was pointed out that she has done this to herself. If you look at her campaign buttons, banners, flyers, yard signs etc, they all shout ‘Hillary’ Where all of Baracs adverts say ‘Obama’ Same with all the other candidates out there.
As crafty as the Clintons are, It wouldn’t surprise me if they did it on purpose. Create a closer, personal feel by using her first name. Then when the pundants and newscasters start using it, decry them as mysogonistic.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:09 am
@ArgusEyes: Women don’t really only talk about women - at least not any more than men only talk about men - you’ve just internalized too much sexism to notice.
Why can so few people here figure out that two people can do the same thing for different, even wholly opposed reasons? She can call herself ‘Hillary’ as a way of being casual, or to distance herself from her husband, EVEN WHILE someone like Chris Matthews calls her ‘Hillary’ as an (probably unconscious) sign of lack of respect.
Do you also often confuse people and bees, even though they both like to wander around in fields of flowers? Similar behavior does not imply similar reasons for that behavior.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am
StevoR said:
“In French (& I think German, Spainish and other European languages too) various objects are given genders ‘male-female & neutral’. Are tehymore or less sexist nations for this?”
Oh don’t even get me started on why, in German, ‘turnip’ is female but ‘girl’ is neutral (das Maedchen)!
February 7th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Hi [Mrs. BA],
You bring up a good point, and it’s well said. I wish I had an answer or a way to change it.
It’s great to hear from you again!
Larissa
February 7th, 2008 at 8:41 am
“Why is women can only talk about women? I saw it coming from a mile away. When I see a woman comic I know what her material is going to be, when I see a woman politician I know what her material is going to be. A whole country does not need a president who is only interested in half of it, and will spit on the other half. A country needs a president who will server everyone irregardless of their race or gender.”
And saying that half the country is throughly predictable and dismissable *isn’t* spitting on that half?
Dude. The whole “white male macho cowboy” thing? That’s identity politics, too. We just consider it the “default American”, so it’s expected they’d serve everyone. Meh.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Thanny, as far as kids go, my husband and I have decided that since they would get my mitochondrial DNA they can have his last name. Sounds fair to both of us. I also think that the newspapers had to use “Ike” because just printing the word “Eisenhower” would have almost been the complete headline by itself.
SirJonah, I see a lot of the “my debating skillz rock!” stuff on Pharyngula. It sounds silly, sorry. Like geezers comparing how many obscure rock bands they have seen playing live. There’s a reason that debate team geeks don’t get very many dates.
Wayne, I don’t wear a wedding ring either. It just seems silly to me, wearing a piece of jewelry constantly, no matter how much it gets in the way of my doing what I need to be doing, just to let society know that I have attained the status of being a proper married woman. It also make me think of the women in Mona Lisa Smile. Showing off a ring to demonstrate “mission accomplished”. Nah…
February 7th, 2008 at 8:47 am
At the risk of beating a dead horse, may I point out that in Florida gubernatorial elections President Bush’s younger brother Jeb Bush always ran with campaign signs that proclaimed “JEB!”, yet no newscaster ever referred to him by his first name. And Mayor Guliani’s campain signs this past year all said “Rudy!”, but I never heard anyone say “In a campaign speech today, Rudy said . . .”
There is unquestionably a double standard staring us right in the face here.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Calling her “Clinton” would be a trifle confusing, for obvious reasons. Calling her “Senator Clinton” would certainly be proper, although somewhat long-winded for TV purposes.
In any case, if you check out her logo, website, etc., you’ll discover that she’s calling herself “Hillary”. A reasonable person might view this as a calculated attempt to underscore the undoubted fact that she’s not a man. That being the case, I’m not certain that she can be heard to complain if everyone else assumes she wants to be called “Hillary”.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Let’s speak pragmatically here: everyone is referred to using a short moniker in the commentary business. “Clinton” is obviously already taken. Saying “Senator Clinton” every time is a pain in the butt.
In addition, her campaign heavily promotes the use of Hillary. They might have even been the first to use the word to refer to her (duh… it’s her NAME!).
This is a severe over-reaction to an imagined gender-biased boogie man who doesn’t exist. The nation is ready for a woman president - I just don’t think Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the right choice. I think Mrs. BA would be better!
February 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Mrs. BA/Ms. BA/BA’s wife:
“…campaign as Hillary Rodham (I’ve decided that’s what I’m going to call her from now on, to show my respect for who she became without the help of her husband or her campaign advisers)”
Perhaps you should show respect by calling her by the name she is asking you to call her by. Also, you are making some pretty presumptuous assumptions, such as (1) she got to where she is without the help of her husband and (2) she is offended that she has had a helpful partner in her life. I would argue strongly against both assumptions.
I don’t think anything is taken away from her to acknowledge that she is where she is because of her connections in life. She forged those connections, and no one can get anywhere without help.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Mrs. BA said: “any mail addressed to Mrs. Philip Plait is torn into little itty bitty pieces and then burned”.
Maybe it would be better to recycle the paper such letters are made of?
February 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am
@Mrs. BA: I share your concerns. I too have a daughter who will sometimes benefit from, and sometimes suffer for, her abilities and her appearance. She has been excited about the prospect of having a woman as president for at least a year now - and doesn’t seem to care at all that we pass Obama’s DC residence nearly every day.
I don’t think the name of the Clinton For President product is particularly relevant to the struggle for gender equality though.
Pundits talk about women as her core constituency. As far as I can tell, this is not because she has put forth ideas that are especially beneficial to women’s unique concerns (whatever those may be) - but if not for the substance of her position, then for what?
For what it’s worth, I see similar commentary on Obama, with similar merit. It all makes about as much sense as saying there’s a core constituency for the Democratic party, or the Republican one, as if we voters were somehow locked into a certain group due to some congenital and immutable quality - or as if labels like “woman”, or “man”, “black”, “white”, “liberal”, or “conservative” are platinum-iridium standards from which deviation is not possible and against which any person or plan or other noun-like property can be easily measured.
But indeed, The Clinton Campaign seems to have received a large share of vote pledges from women in advance of voting, and they’ve answered the exit polls in support of her campaign as well. We can only assume they actually are voting like they’re polling, but we will never actually know. Are those women casting their votes blind to gender? Are they casting their vote in protest of the campaign’s choice to cast her identity with her first name? In support of that?
Will the presidential salary drop 17% (or whatever the calculated difference is these days) if a woman is in that position - or could that circumstance drive the difference to become even lower, if not to disappear entirely? Do we suppose our daughters might look at the success of Mrs. President Clinton and decide it’s just not worth the trouble for them to follow in her footsteps because they might need to follow suit and be known sometimes only by their first names? Would it be easier on them, or increase their self esteem, to know that they could someday be elected to the highest office in the land - and that having a man or a woman as president would make absolutely no difference?
But ultimately, this name thing is mostly a distraction from the two critical issues at hand: selecting the best possible president, and promoting gender equality. If we can achieve both of those goals, the question of what we call people will seem silly.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
1) Personally (I’m not a US citizen) when I talk about the current president with my friends I call him George or Dubya. So “Hillary” is fine.
2) If “Hillary Clinton” has a problem with being called Hillary, then perhaps she should rethink all her advertising and campaign swap (buttons etc), since the overwhelming percentage of those simply use “Hillary”.
3) If “Hillary” doesn’t care, why should you care? Why should we care? She’s obviously comfortable with it (see point #2) or some journalists/reporters early on woulda had their knuckles rapped. If other US women feel somehow uncomfortable with her choice it seems completely irrelevant to the rest of the US population or world.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am
No hot dinners… Doesn’t Phil know how to cook?
February 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am
So many posts. So much debate back and forth. Yet, no one has noticed the conspiracy foisted on us by Mrs. BA. Yes, she has cleverly tricked us into giving “Hillary,” “Mrs. Clinton,” “Sen. Clinton,” or whatever her supporters and detractors are calling her, plenty of bolg-face. Free campaigning time. No chance for any of the other candidates to get this much passion stirred about a their campaign. Now we are entrenching our personal feelings about supporting or working against “Mrs. C” and all because Mrs. BA has used her gender to pressure her husband into allowing this post. What man wants “cold-shoulder” and hand-made bologna sandwiches because the little lady has to have her say? However, it’s good to see Mrs. BA knows her place, ie: in the kitchen fixing hot meals for her Master.
HEY, HEY, just kidding here. I’m not at all serious. I’m a “many years” married man and after these 40 years, my better half and I do not think anywhere nearly the same. I used to work with a black gentelman. We held equal positions in the company. We were “coffee buddies” when we could get away. We compaired our lives and found them to not be much different. I thought I was not prejudiced, but what a surprise to find that in almost any situation his preception and mine were determined by our race and background. Not that his was any more right or wrong than mine, just different. And so it is with all of us. Women have different views than men. Whites different than blacks. Young different than elders. And on and on.
Now, enough of this stuff. Let’s get back to astronomy.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
MH Said:
“Why can so few people here figure out that two people can do the same thing for different, even wholly opposed reasons? She can call herself ‘Hillary’ as a way of being casual, or to distance herself from her husband, EVEN WHILE someone like Chris Matthews calls her ‘Hillary’ as an (probably unconscious) sign of lack of respect.”
I wanted to quote this, because I totally agree, and it’s really frustrating to me that the majority of posters here aren’t seeing this very simple difference.
Senator Clinton is likely using her first name in her campaigning because she needs to seem more likable and approachable. Because she is a woman in politics, she is automatically seen as being cold or b*tchy for acting in a way that would be called “strong” or “powerful” if she was a man. She chose to use her first name, because she needed to change her image in world of double-standards. So you can’t really call that a “choice,” it’s more a sense of doing the best you can within the existing restraints. She can’t change ingrained perceptions of women, so she has to find a way to manipulate them.
I don’t want to vote for her, but I do respect her a great deal for the trail she is blazing. She’s being forced to walk an incredibly fine line between being “weak and feminine” and “cold and b*tchy.” It’s a double-standard for women, that men do not have to deal with. Obama is not seen as “girly” or “weak” because he is likable.
Those of you who are poo-pooing this off as an overreaction have likely never really paid attention to gender politics, or the way there are so many words that we use to demean men by implying they are female or feminine. These types of gender stereotypes are so ingrained that they seem like “the way things are” rather than something wrong that should be changed.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Yes, the press will probably refer to her as “President Hillary”, if only to keep from writing “President Clinton” - who will be (no doubt about it) back in the saddle. (Does anybody think he will simply ignore the reins of power and sit around the White House reading foreign policy journals?)
I’d separate out the campaign signs - Giuliani’s was simply “Rudy” - from terms of address. Many people like to use Obama’s full name (Barack Hussein Obama), which they explain by saying that they always use Hillary’s full name. I haven’t watched any of the debates (tender stomach), but the moderators should be saying “Senator Clinton” and “Senator Obama” and “Senator McCain”, &c.
Speaking of how people refer to candidates, here’s an interesting little headline from Sweden (by way of Gates of Vienna):
(Headline)
I’ll leave the headline out, just in case it’s too un-PC for some of your readers’ tender ears. (It’s not offensive, but it is startling to those of us who have had to put up with years of PC-talk.)
February 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
OK, on a serious note… all this back-n-forth discussion has absolutely no relevance or meaning. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what someone calls you or how you are refered to IF you are secure in who you are and what you stand for, believe in and practice in life.
Persons, insecure about themselves, demand certain types of recognition, including honorifics, titles, and societal respect. Secure persons need no such recognition.
Mrs. BA’s use of her “Mrs. BA” and or other titles or lack of accepting titles not to her specifications is specious. You are who you are. Don’t let someone else define you by demanding or expecting titles because of their prejudices. Be yourself. Let “whoever she is” running for President be who she is, including how she refers to herself. If you intend to blog some more, call yourself what you really want to be know as, rather than using a blog name you think people will accept - unless you really want to be know as “Mrs BA.”
For myself, you can call me anything you want, just don’t call me late for dinner (yeh, I know it’s an old joke - ha, ha).
February 7th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Usage of the first name of the candidate
I know this will be lost at the very bottom, but it is my two cents.
At least for some people, it is not a sign of disrespect, but of deference for the familiar versus the unfamiliar. I know a lot of people who call her “Hillary” as if she were a member of the family and whom I know will probably vote for her. I feel that the usage of a first name does not necessarily diminish authority. Instead, I think it implies that some people, at least, are more comfortable with her and think of her as “our Hillary” rather than “the much vaunted female Senator Clinton.” It sort of puts her in the household and at the table during dinner rather than placing her on some pedestal on capital hill. Perhaps the candidate who should be in office is the one people are willing to recognize in a familiar fashion, and therefore more willing to follow. Faith in the government is most of what makes a government able to work.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Hi Mrs BA
Not sure if you are still reading, given the deterioration of comments at this point
I loved your post and I too have noticed this trend in the media (not just with Hillary Clinton, but certainly most recently with her).
I agree completely that how she chooses to brand her campaign should be separate from how she personally is referred to by the media. I believe there is a definite subtle trend to disrepect people, particularly women, by referring to them with less professional name conventions. Worse, I think this is ingrained in our society to the point where often it is done subconsciously, without actively choosing to do so (which is also why I think so many people think it’s “nothing”).
My belief is that this practice is directly related to the practice of women giving up their last names on getting married. I suspect women are less associated with their last names since they are not permanent. I’ve noticed this in social and work groups, where men are often referred to by their last names but women rarely are. I also think we (women) do this to ourselves for the same reasons. It disturbs me, and I agree fully with your comments about lack of identity.
BTW, for all those counting, I did not change my name when I got married (and my husband thought it was ridiculous that I would be expected to do so). Our son has his last name, mostly because we both like it better.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
An interesting point - and one I’d like to see discussed on LanguageLog, actually.
I’d just like to say, though, that for as long as I can recall I have always referred to my parents by their first names. I have been told of a time when that wasn’t the case (I supposedly used ‘mum’ in kindergarten), but saying anything else is completely unnatural to me. I only use “my mother/father” when I talking to strangers who’ll be unfamiliar with their names.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
It seems the media loves taking a name, changing it and running with it. It seems much more rampant with a woman’s name then a man’s. Remember Di? Her name was Diana, Princess of Wales. Fergie? She is the Duchess of York. JLo? I could go on. It even gets way too out of hand when we refer to a couple (example: “Bennifer” and “Brangela”).
Do you think these people enjoy the bastardization of their names?
Why has this form of disrespect become the norm? Why does when one entity does it, it’s open game for every other to do the same?
I heartily agree with Mrs. BA. When I married my husband, I hyphenated, he supported me in that decision. It would have been great if we could have both hyphenated our names, and passed that to our children, to signify OUR family.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I have no respect for *any* of them, so I’m not particularly bothered by it. Hillary Hillary Hillary. Sue me.
I use “Obama” simply because it’s more fun to say than “Barack”.
I use “McCain” because, well, John is too common.
I use “Romney” because “Mitt” is just silly.
However I thought in 2008 I have observed a sea change in the media with them using “Clinton” more often. Could be a biased sample on my end, though.
karebear said: It would have been great if we could have both hyphenated our names, and passed that to our children, to signify OUR family.
Wouldn’t the names get really long after just a few generations?
“Hello, I’m Sally Johnson-Smith-Clinton-Smith-Smith-Letterman-Smith-McAlpine-Smith-Smith-Vanderbilt-Winston-Smith-Smith-Smith”
February 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Hold on a minute. As a male, I feel obligated for no other reason than accident of birth to present a counterpoint: Rather than last name being a sign of respect, it is rather a diminution of the individual. In the army, you have a patch with your last name. You end up called by your last name. That’s all you ever have is your last name; anybody refers to you by first name and people go “who?” In the ancient workplace, where trades were dynasties, your last or family name was more important.
This continues in some cultures, to the point that the last name is first in reference.
You end up being a seed vessel rather than an individual: you are less than your lineage, which is somewhat patriarchal, but is not any more beneficial to the individual carrying the name. In a matrilineal society, it would be the same: you are your lineage, and it might be reversed so that the name-carrier was pushed back to being a reference to the line, and the non-name-carrier had references by first name. In Japan, the lineage of a couple would be the more important family regardless of sex.
It is a stricture and a diminishment of the individual, not a sign of respect for the individual: it is a sign of respect for the lineage.
And in this respect, I think Hillary is trying to buck the lineage.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I’ll add one more after thought.
American Presidents with tri-names where abbreviated. Such as Franklin D. Roosevelt was name FDR and John F. Kennedy was named JFK. Thus, Hillary Rodham Clinton should be refered to as HRC…perhaps distinguishing herself from her husband for the politically challenged.
…assuming she would win the presidency, of coarse.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
And in regard to long names - go the route of the Icelandic: “I’m Kjartan Arnorsson” - Kjartan, son of Arnor. The extent of your immediate lineage is your parent.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Dear Mrs. BA — I’m late with the post. Who cares what her name is? What is more important is that we do not need another dynasty in this country. I’ll give Obama (note the first name) a shot at the Republicans but I will not vote for another Clinton because my immigrant grandparents came to USA to leave behind family controlled countries and regal dynasties. A country of 300MM people ought to be able to cough up better choices. And, finally, the decision may ultimately made by the swing justice in the Supreme Court. What do I know anyway?!
February 7th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Looks like the conversation has moved on, but I want to retract my earlier (near the top) comments. Mrs. BA is completely right. While HRC does brand herself as Hillary, it is an unfortunate probability that this is a necessary strategy to satisfy the latent (or otherwise) sexism still very much present in America. It is a form of disrespect, and it is wrong.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I think Hillary herself want to be called Hillary so as not to be confused with Bill. Clinton could mean either one. I personally would not vote for Hillary, not because she is a woman, but because she is not skeptical in the least. She has spoke against bills that did not even exist. She has aids that should look stuff like that up. I would love to see a female candidate that was actually sane. It is a real shame none have risen to the occasion.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
206 resoponses says as much as the topic! Nice, Ms. Bad Astronomer!
February 7th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
It always helps to check the facts. The following URL is a transcript of CNN’s live coverage of Super Tuesday:
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/06/se.04.html
I suggest you do the following scientific experiment:
Cut and paste the contents in notepad.
Search for the string Hillary. It occurs 19 times.
Search for the string Clinton. It occurs 31 times.
Out of the 19 occurrences of the word Hillary only 4 were not followed by the word Clinton. There are 21 occurrences of the word Barack. Only 3 of them were not followed by the word Obama. Where’s the vast right-wing conspiracy here? I don’t see it. It seems she gets the same treatment as Barack Obama.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I agree with the poster who suggest, and rightfully so, that it is an attempt to distance herself from from the ‘Clinton’ name. It shows that she is standing on her own. People are already wary of her connections to the Clinton (Bill) administration. I also liked the idea that someone suggested about already having a feeling of intimacy with her. I think people who are looknig for a conspiracy against women are reading too much into this. For that matter, why was it ok to refer to the former President Clinton as ‘Bill’? Why not William? Were we showing our disrespect? What about ‘Jimmy’ Carter? Gerald Ford was never ‘Gerry’ and Ronald Reagan was never ‘Ronny’. Richard Nixon was never ‘Rick’ or ‘Ricky’ or even ‘Dick’ (although many might be thinking it now!). Using ‘Hillary’ was the smart choice.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Hmm…later to the party than usual.
As several dozen have pointed out, Clinton has embraced the idea of using her first name, for whatever reasons.
I think this was a worthwhile attempt at peeking into the motivations of the press, but it ignores some mischaracterizations that are more prominent to my eye. Until Clinton actually shed tears on camera, it seemed to me that the press treated her as some kind of Borg-woman. Simply because she is a female who is adept at political wrangling, she was treated as an inhuman ice-queen. And once she did show emotion, most of the coverage was about whether or not they were crocodile tears.
I feel that she is often demonized in the press, but also in the blogosphere and casual converstaion. I have heard trash talk from dozens of people, left and right. I understand not agreeing with her political decisions, but the personal attacks get silly, especially from right wingers. I’ve heard it said that she’ll spend the country broke, when she’s more of a big-business republican than any caricature of a tax-and spend liberal. As a moderate liberal, I criticize her more for not being liberal enough, but I don’t accuse her of trying to sell America to Mexico.
She’s no more untrustworthy than any other major national politician, but gets more guff and grumbling than any of the others, from the left and the right. I can’t help but think that her being a powerful, ambitious woman might have something to do with that. The public lack of respect for Hillary started back when Bill was in office, and petty, intellectually lazy segment of the population hangs on to it because it’s easier than putting forth a real argument. I’m just surprised that the backlash and rumors against Obama haven’t been worse than they are, but I imagine that will change if he gets the nomination.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
So since “she was asking for it,” that makes it “okay” for professional news announcers to constantly refer to Senator Clinton as “Hillary”? No, it is *not* okay, regardless of how her campaign posters are dressed.
The constant use of “Hillary” in news reports acts as a trivializing element.
When I walk into a courtroom and address the judge, I always say, “Your Honor,” not “Hi Tom,” or “Yo, Mary!” even though I may have spoken that way with them casually for a decade or more. News announcers don’t need to stick to such a high level of formality, but hard news journalists should not be referring to Senator Clinton by her first name unless they give the same treatment to all the other (male) candidates.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Hey, Pop, you should forget about “pop” psychology because you’re not very good at it. You have completely missed the point. One’s sense of “security” has nothing at all to do with the issue.
What matters is the manipulation of public opinion by supposedly objective, professional newscasters, through the constant use of a trivializing reference to a presidential candidate.
Seriously, if you can’t grasp the issue, don’t bother passing along your utterly useless “insights.”
February 7th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Not that sexism and racism don’t exist, but I really think that it may be part of the Hillary Clinton campaign strategy. Has anyone check to see if the Clinton campaign people haven’t actually encouraged this?
February 7th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I’ve caught myself calling her “Hillary” a lot and I’ve had the same self-internalized thoughts as yourself. But really, upon further inspection, I think it’s because we’ve thought of her as Hillary since her First Spouse days (like my use of a gender neutral term there?). I guess it’s sorta like other nicknames; hard to shake ‘em once you’ve got them.
Though, I guess the true test is if she DOES make it to President not if we call her President Clinton but calling her husband just “Bill”.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Wow. Now we have someone comparing calling Senator Clinton “Hillary” to rape. That person departed the sane train a looong time ago.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/2449/hillarybannertq0.jpg
Her nickname just happens to be her first name. I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with her being a woman. In fact, I’m pretty sure she’s not a woman.
I get my hackles up though too at violations of tradition like this. Every so often, an adult (who’s not a close friend or relative) will ask one of my kids to call them by their first name. Bah! You might as well tell them it’s OK to jump on your couch while you’re at it.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:08 am
Quiet Desperation: Watch “Enemy Mine” again
I have paid careful attention to the news I hear over the last two days and have NOT ONCE heard Sen. Clinton referred to by first name only.
Perhaps, as things become more “official”, so is the reporting.
Or perhaps I just listen to more responsible news?
JC
February 8th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Dang - “so is…” should be “so does …”
JC
February 8th, 2008 at 6:26 am
I do think it’s because when you hear “Clinton” you always think Bill, even if Hillary Clinton was the first person mentioned in the report.
That said, though, I recently heard on news radio that McCain’s campaign was working hard NOT to use first names when referring to the other candidates, because first names make a candidate seem more down-to-earth and appealing to the general public. (But you never hear McCain being called John…)
February 8th, 2008 at 6:33 am
I love Neil’s comment. Especially this part: “I’ve heard it said that she’ll spend the country broke” — hilarious when we consider that our Republican president just put forth a $3.1 trillion budget, with a $410 billion deficit. How much more broke could we be? The answer is none. None more broke.
(Not sure if the Spinal Tap reference really works, but it amused me, anyway.)
February 8th, 2008 at 8:21 am
I have to disagree completely. I think, Mrs. BA, that you confuse formality with respect, and informality with lack of respect.
I was brought up to respect people and above all respect their wishes. I always refer to a person by the name with which they introduce them self. Thus I feel it is disrespectful to refer to Hillary as Clinton or Hillary Clinton, when her campaign has made it abundantly clear that her wishes are that she should be called Hillary.
Therefore referring to her by last name, while definitely more formal, is in fact disrespectful as it is going against her desire.
Reading the comments I agree with your views on taking the husbands last name. My wife flat out refused to be a Smith, I have no problem with that, she still has her ex-husbands last name. It’s a much more interesting exotic name and I’ve half a mind to adopt it myself. My mother changed back to her maiden name after her divorce and in her new marriage she’s kept that lastname. I had many people (one family member but mostly strangers and government workers) try tell me it’s unacceptable to for my wife to keep her previous name and she needs to at least hyphenate, but as far as I’m concerned it was her decision and I support it completely.
@Nat
Phill has made it clear time and time again that this blog will contain posts which are not of an astronomical nature. It’s his blog he gets to decide what is talked about.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:22 am
I have to disagree completely. I think, Mrs. BA, that you confuse formality with respect, and informality with lack of respect.
I was brought up to respect people and above all respect their wishes. I always refer to a person by the name with which they introduce them self. Thus I feel it is disrespectful to refer to Hillary as Clinton or Hillary Clinton, when her campaign has made it abundantly clear that her wishes are that she should be called Hillary.
Therefore referring to her by last name, while definitely more formal, is in fact disrespectful as it is going against her desire.
Reading the comments I agree with your views on taking the husbands last name. My wife flat out refused to be a Smith, I have no problem with that, she still has her ex-husbands last name. It’s a much more interesting exotic name and I’ve half a mind to adopt it myself. My mother changed back to her maiden name after her divorce and in her new marriage she’s kept that last name. I had many people (one family member but mostly strangers and government workers) try tell me it’s unacceptable to for my wife to keep her previous name and she needs to at least hyphenate, but as far as I’m concerned it was her decision and I support it completely.
@Nat
Phil Plait has made it clear time and time again that this blog will contain posts which are not of an astronomical nature. It’s his blog he gets to decide what is talked about.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Michelle said (ignoring the profanity):
“looser blog now”
Looser than what, Michelle? Hmm?
Incidentally, you may need to read these earlier posts:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/15/politics-science-me-and-thee/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/10/03/comments-policy/
Way to not “get” the BA, Michelle.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Interestingly, I was watching A Daily Show last night with mock interviews of NYers and everyone of them referred to HC as Hillary and BO Obama.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Would someone kindly imprison the fake Michelle in a barrel until she learns some manners?
February 8th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Although I’m very much in support of working to improve the social standing of women within society with the ultimate goal being to achieve equality of opportunity for both sexes, I also think we need to keep in mind that there are some underlying biological differences that may contribute to ongoing social disparities.
I am NOT suggesting that men and women differ in capacity, only that I think there is good evidence that they may be biologically inclined towards pursuing different interests.
For example, whenever one suggests that we should try to improve society so that it doesn’t objectify women based upon their appearance, I suspect that this position doesn’t fully take into account that such objectification probably has at least as much to do with biological predespositions as it does with societal conventions. I doubt that we will ever achieve a society that is able fully to “get over” what a woman looks like simply because that impulse is rooted in instinct to assess biological fitness rather than in social mores (although clearly social mores strongly influence perceptions of beauty and fitness).
February 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
While I know it was a humorous statement, I find it ironic that a blog with concerns about sexism contains the female author’s threat of no hot dinner for her husband. My question in that regard is, who is such a statement sexist against? Women, in the sense that women are subserviant, and as such prepare the food for men? Or perhaps it is sexist against men, in the sense that men are stupid and cannot prepare food for themselves.
After much thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that I (a man) have some dishes to wash, and that there are much better uses for my time.
Any debate aside, I do think SirJonah has embraced the idea of equality by treating Mrs. BA no differently than he would anyone else with an arguement. Good for you, SirJonah!
February 8th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I believe that the fact of Mrs. Clinton being referred to as “Hilary” could probably be traced back directly to Global Warming. I mean I can’t even watch the Little League World Series with out the outcome somehow being attributed to Global Warming. So I can only deduce that anything slightly unusual or unconventional can only be linked to this phenomenon. I mean this is just hard fact. besides, if an expert on Global dynamics such as Babs Streisnand says it’s so, that’s all I need to know!!!
February 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Because I can’t get ahold of you directly- thank you Tom Marking.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
L A Fowler — if you really, honestly want to learn about global warming, try reading the IPCC AR4 report. Then go through a book like John T. Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres” (3rd Ed. 2002) or Grant W. Petty’s “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation” (2006), and work all the problems. The Petty book is a little more stringent in terms of what level of math you need to know, but it also has stuff using only algebra and arithmetic.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I agree with Mrs. BA. I don’t support Senator Clinton (there’s a way to distinguish her from her husband!), but I’ve noticed the over-use of the first name, said in a manner that I find is an attempt to demean.
There are just some people, mostly men, who think of women as lesser life forms. They’re usually the loudest ones protesting when it’s pointed out. They’re not a majority, and sometimes, I think they’re not even aware they’re doing it. For the women who agree with these types of men and think of themselves as less than, that’s just sad.
I was raised to believe that I could be whatever I wanted to be, and that’s why it’s so surprising when I stumble upon this kind of attitude, because I am genuinely surprised it happens, and it’s actually the very last thing I look for when reasoning these kind of issues.
People trying to start a fight over semantics are just splitting hairs, and picking a fight for the sake of a fight. They can’t really mean or have a strong stance about what they’re actually saying. In fairness, they do it to Mr. BA also.
I just wanted to let the guest blogger know she’s not the only one who has noticed. Whether or not it’s an intentional attempt to demean is up for opinion but it is demeaning. Of course, Senator Clinton gets much worse said about her gender as related to the presidency outside of newsrooms.
In most countries, people would be more quick to debate about issues and past history known and unknown, rather than gender. The US is a very big place though, so for as many intelligent people, there are many millions who are less so.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Dear Mrs. BA,
You’ve probably given up on reading the comments by now, but I’d like to echo cyberg00se: You’re not the only one who’s noticed, or the only one who’s been bothered.
I think that wondering how much of it is due to her own marketing is valid, but this doesn’t only happen to Hillary Clinton. It’s common for people to refer to women in more familiar, diminutive ways. If you start paying attention to it, you’ll see it everywhere, especially in less formal contexts.
(Personally, I think that the reason it’s so widespread in the media is that Clinton herself approves of it, whatever her reasons may be. Her approval is what makes the double-standard acceptable in the eyes of journalists and their editors. I think we’d see a lot more “Senator Clinton” if she hadn’t run with it.)
Also, I’d like to take a moment to point out how dispiriting it is to see every discussion of sexism devolve into debate about how men and women are supposedly biologically different. When people have to bring that up in discussions that are only tangentially related in that they deal with sexism, it’s really obvious that they have an agenda. And it’s an agenda I do not like at all, speaking as a woman who has to deal with the unjust results of such thinking.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I agree with the bulk of the commenters here, that HRC is being called Hillary because that’s what she calls herself. However, for other issues of sexism in the campaign, read:
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html
February 9th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Mmmmnn… uhhh… gee… (spittle running down my chin onto my shirt) duhh… I guess… I mean…
I know everthing I know about sy-collo-gee I learned from Patric Starfish. So I guess ole MTran’s got me pegged, huh.
Because I have an opinion not matching MTran’s I’m to be publicly chastised by his/her’s/it’s scathing retort?
I thought the idea of this blog was to say my piece, even if it was idiotic, skewed, bigoted, inane, and maybe made in satirical fun. If you can’t take a joke MTran, move on, or buggar-off. XOXO
BTW, MTran, don’t bother to reply, I ain’t coming back to this particular blog line. Catch me somewhere else.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Another thing that bothers me: if Democrats are all about “diversity” - even when they really mean “of skin color, nothing else matters” - why don’t they have as many women and blacks in their Cabinets?
Oh, I get it. A black Republican can’t really be “black”. Pbbb!
February 10th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
God I love this entry.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:37 am
This is an interesting observation, but without hearing every single example, I wouldn’t immediately interpret this as insulting or impertinent. I ‘read’ a certain informality and positive sense of familiarity in the preference. Not to mention she’s been in the spotlight for years already anyway.
It’s not as though we have a strong honorific system in English, like the Japanese do, or the formal titles and pronouns found in German and French.
The practice of using last name only might be construed as distant and negative. Reminds me of British public school boys in adventure books where brothers are referred to ‘properly’ as ‘Smith Minor’ and ‘Smith Major’.
I think this can only work in Hillary’s favor.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:01 am
[…] can’t say that I was the first one to vocalize the matter via a blog post, but I certainly subconsciously addressed it in my own way and admittedly shrugged it off […]
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
most people have pointed out what I also believe to be the primary reason - she’s pushing a first-name campaign herself, but there may be a reason for doing that in the first place.
Some Republicans would never vote for a Democrat anyway, but those very very few who might - out of disgust for the present regime - might be more ever so slighltly more willing to do so if they can vote for “Hillary” and not “Clinton”. Just a thought.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
bingo fan
Great site - this info is great! Looking forward to reading the rest.