Some feminists think it is sexist that Hillary Clinton is called by her first name when male candidates are called by their last. They think this uncovers a deep-seated inequality and all that:
Laura F. Edwards, a history professor at Duke University who studies gender, said calling a woman by her first name is part of a larger problem in our culture in how to acknowledge women, who have always used their fathers’ and husbands’ names because they were never expected to have a public place in the world.
“All this gets to the point that women had no public identities of their own,” she said. “And we’re still living with the implications of that.”
Give me a break. There are so many issues with this trumped up “problem.” For one, Hillary Clinton herself, or her campaign managers, used Hillary in pretty much all of her campaign materials. Remember “Ready for Hillary”? Or just “Hillary 2016”? Yeah. So don’t blame men for that. Unless her campaign was run by men. Then blame them.
Beyond that, it makes sense to call her Hillary, because another Clinton has already been president. It’s what happened with George W. Bush as well. Remember those “W: The President” bumper stickers? That wasn’t a sign of disrespect. That’s the way we distinguished George W from his father.
In the same way, if Hillary Clinton becomes president, we can’t really talk about President Clinton. So we call her Hillary. And she said that was okay. Is this a sign that we don’t respect her? No. And even if it were a sign of disrespect, it wouldn’t necessarily be based on her gender.
When will we be done assigning motivation based on superficial differences? Isn’t that as bad as assigning value based on superficial differences?