Great site – this info is great! Looking forward to reading the rest.

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.

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.

Oh, I get it. A black Republican can’t really be “black”. Pbbb!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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).

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.

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.

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.

(Not sure if the Spinal Tap reference really works, but it amused me, anyway.)

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…)

JC

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

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.