It’s come up a lot: why do we (and I must say that I include myself in this ‘we’) constantly refer to Hillary Clinton as ‘Hillary’ in the same breath that we refer to the other, male candidates by their last names?
If this were the case with any other female politician, I wouldn’t think too hard about labelling it as sexism in reporting. However, with Hillary, there is the sticky issue of Bill. The fact is, we can’t just call her ‘Clinton’. It would just be too confusing. And the reason that we abbreviate the names of well-known people in the first place (politicians, writers, intellectuals, and celebrities alike) is both to make speaking about them more convenient in colloquial terms, and to bring them down a little bit closer to our level. Referring to someone by part of his or her name is an expression of familiarity.
In this Salon article, Hillary says that she is okay with people calling her by her first name:
Let me ask something that comes up every time I write about you. I sometimes refer to you on, say, the fifth reference as “Hillary” instead of “Clinton.” I always get three or four letters saying that I am demeaning women by referring to you by your first name. But your campaign materials refer to you as “Hillary” and the word “Clinton” might also apply to another well-known public person. Do you have any feelings about this? Am I offending you every time I type “Hillary, Obama and Edwards“? Or do you have an open mind as long as I spell Hillary correctly?
I probably have more of an open mind. But I understand the point people are taking because if you also refer to Rudy and Mitt and John then that would be even-handed. I get the same indignation from a lot of women who read you and others and say, “They never call the other candidates by their first name.”
And I think that in print — as opposed to building a campaign that really does use my first name because it is so identified with who I am — that’s the concern that people have.
After some consideration, I agree with Hillary. The reason people call Hillary by her first name is convenient, not sexist.
But this brings me to another consideration (and what honestly could be a completely unrelated tangent)– could Hillary be benefitting from an extra familiarity? Why do some celebrities (Madonna) choose to be known only by one name? Is it because they know something we don’t– for example, that being known only by your first name holds some extra power in the public mind, some ability to be closer to one’s fans? I think the power of one name could go two ways: either it could be a way to create the illusion of such fame that has no need of an identifying last name, or else a way to feign a first-name intimacy with the public. I am pretty certain that Hillary’s campaign managers aren’t really thinking along these lines, but embracing, rather than fighting, the first-name moniker she has been given seems like a smart move.
