People often refer to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as simply “Hillary.” Whereas her male counterparts are rarely, if ever, identified by their first names. How often do you hear people say “Ted” instead of “Ted Cruz,” or “Jeb” instead of “Jeb Bush?” Apparently, Americans know Hillary Clinton well enough to be on a first name basis with her.
Some might see this idiosyncrasy as a trifling, unimportant matter. In reality, it’s a problem that must be addressed. It is not a coincidence that the only candidate we are on a first name basis with just happens to be a woman. This subtle sexism is problematic on a number of levels.
Calling Clinton by her first name serves as a constant reminder that she is, indeed, a woman. She does not fit the “mold” of the typical president who has always been male. Whereas “Clinton” is ambiguous in terms of gender, “Hillary” is overwhelmingly percieved as a female name. The public cannot look at Clinton as just another presidential candidate — she is a female presidential candidate.
Not calling Clinton by either her last name or her full name denies her the respect she deserves. Calling someone by their first name implies an informal familiarity. Understandably, we shouldn’t be calling someone who is running for the most powerful position in America by their first name.
Given her many political accomplishments and achievements, Clinton deserves to be called by her full or last name.
I, too, am guilty of referring to Clinton as just “Hillary.” I don’t believe that people are purposefully being condescending towards Clinton. In fact, even the presidential candidate has embraced the abbreviation, signing off on various Tweets as “H” or “Hillary.” And who can forget her campaign slogan? Clinton doesn’t seem to have a problem with her supporters being “Ready for Hillary.” Perhaps this is all part of her campaign’s charm offensive, an attempt to cast their candidate as more personable and down-to-earth.
The fact that we call her “Hillary” is not the root cause of a problem. Instead, it’s the symptom. Women in power are constantly labelled as “bossy” or “aggressive.” On the other hand, men in power are spared such adjectives.
Clinton has taken pains to build her campaign upon her friendliness and approachability. If she appears distant or cold, potential supporters will not vote for her. This is not a concern for her male counterparts. They can command authority without being written off as too aggressive or hostile. This double-standard is so ingrained in the very fabric of society that, in order to have a shot at winning the election, Clinton must pander to it.
Some might justify calling Clinton “Hillary” as merely a way to differentiate between her and her husband, former president Bill Clinton. If this were the case, why do we not call presidential candidate Jeb Bush by his first name? After all, his brother, George W. Bush, and father, George H.W. Bush, are both former presidents, and his campaign slogan is “Jeb!” Nonetheless, most media outlest refer to him by his full name or his last name.
While this discrepancy may seem insignificant to most, it is worth addressing because of its greater societal implications. Although we are making strides in eradicating gender inequality, situations like these set us back. This is not something that can be fixed with the 2016 presidential election alone. However, bringing attention to gender equality might improve the prospects of women looking ahead to 2020.
