I’ve noticed an interesting trend in my writing and in the writing of others… wanted to throw it by the great SDMB grammar nazi brigade…
Being in PR, I write notes to reporters and editors introducing experts they might be interested in chatting with. I’ve noticed that, subconsciously, on second reference I tend to refer to MEN by only their last name and WOMEN by only their first name.
Ex.:
John Smith is an expert in this field. Smith is the author of Business Book and will be attending the seminar at…
Jeanne Gonzalez is an expert in this field. Jeanne is the author of Business Book and will be attending the seminar at…
This would seem to be a fairly transparent betrayal of my own bias. Is this a common occurrence? Is it “wrong”?
The journalistic style guides I’ve seen say to refer to everyone by last name after the first reference, except when there’s a risk of misunderstanding (such as when an article has two Smiths).
Like any style guide, right or wrong is kind of a relative thing. I don’t know if you can make big case for sexism, but it would tend to make references to women more personal and informal than references to men.
I noticed this mostly with the two Clintons: Bill usually gets referred to as “Clinton” or “President Clinton” while Hillary is more commonly referred to as “Hillary” (though she sometimes also gets “Clinton.”)
Not sure if this is just another example, or if it might actually be one of the causes (given how famous the two are).
In newspapers, from what I noticed, Hillary gets “Clinton” in the headlines for the most part. Perhaps it’s just the papers I read, but I’ve gotten confused on more than one occasion, as I’m so used to “Clinton” meaning “Bill,” it’s taken time to readjust my expectations.
Seems to me that that’s more likely to be a result of them having the same last name. Given that the name Clinton would have been first attached to Bill, saying just ‘Clinton’ would refer to him, so you need something else for Hillary. My guess would be that there was a while when it was ‘Hillary Clinton’, and then once she gained enough of her own fame, just Hillary. Same with the Obamas - just ‘Obama’ means Barack, and Michelle is really the only available shortening of ‘Michelle Obama’. DOn’t know anything about non-married references, though.
This usage is unfortunately common and many women have vociferously complained about it. It’s a holdover from the past, a past in which only men had real jobs and real worth.
I don’t see any way that it isn’t incorrect and sexist as a general rule.
There are particular instances in which you might want to do so, as in the case of an article on the Clintons. Then you could correctly use Hillary and Bill and Chelsea to differentiate them.
But if you are writing about the Secretary of State it is always Clinton and never Hillary in any formal setting.
PR is a borderline case as a formal setting. However, the business world is not. A woman should command the same respect as a man. If you use a man’s last name, use a woman’s last name. Or use first names for both. Never last for men and first for women.
Strongly agree. Although I am sure it isn’t a conscious thing on your part, it certainly IS sexist. I, for one, would be offended to be treated more informally than you would a man.
In academic literature you refer to everyone by last name, regardless of their sex. Referring to Barbara Henson’s theory of language, you’d say ‘Henson’s theory is complicated because…’ etc. I think that’s the way it should be really.
I agree that this is sexist, but it’s also worth remembering that the entire system is changing. A generation ago, people would have been on a first-name basis with fewer people, and two generations ago fewer still. Formal writing is slowly changing to follow contemporary usage.* The Clinton case is an example of the latter: I believe Ms. Clinton chose to be known as “Hillary” in order to portray a warmer, friendlier image, and of course you should respect someone’s choices, even if you think they’re sexist and stupid and ultimately self-defeating.
Which annoys the bejeezus out of me, for what it’s worth. I’m “Dr. Drake,” “Mr. Drake,” or “Drake” — your choice — but only friends and family are permitted to call me Aloysius.
Men and women should both be identified by their last names most of the time, particularly in hard news stories. Exceptions are sometimes made for young children. If you are writing about a family, all family members should be identified by their first names on second reference- as opposed to the man being “Smith” and his wife and their child being “Jane” and “Janet.” Yes, by definition it’s sexist to do otherwise.
Hillary Clinton isn’t really a good example in that her husband is at least as well known, and the use of her first name is basically a campaign tactic. In most articles she would properly be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on first reference and “Clinton” after that. If the story is about both of them, they’d both be called by their first names or both by their titles.
On the other hand, the current governor of Alaska is almost always referred to as “Palin”, and never as “Sarah”, while her husband might be referred to simply (in context) as “Todd”. I think that for married couples, the pattern is simply that the more famous of the two is referred to by last name, and the spouse (or other relative) of the more famous one is referred to by first name to distinguish from the famous one. It’s only sexist in so far as it’s sexist that more men are famous than women.
But also in the past, it was fairly common for men to address or refer to each other by last name only, even if they were close enough to be on a “first-name basis.” (For instance, didn’t Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson address each other as “Holmes” and “Watson,” even though they were essentially best friends?) Women, not so much.
There are two things at play here: (1) last name vs. first name and (2) honorific vs. no honorific. Because of, well, culturally institutionalized sexism, the surname alone refers to a man. The eldest daughter of a family would be Miss Watson or Miss Holmes; her younger sisters in Holmes’s day [yes, I know he’s fictional] would be referred to by either their first name, or, if married, by an honorific (“Mrs.”) + the husband’s last name. So in that sense, no, women don’t get called by their given surname as much, but that’s in part because it isn’t really their own. I don’t think anyone really thinks this way anymore, so I’m talking about the 19th century and earlier.
Another factor which comes into play is that men who are socialized within large all-male instutitions such as private boarding schools or the army often do keep addressing each other by their last name. Mrs. Watson, I believe, calls her husband “John,” but I don’t think anybody calls Holmes “Sherlock.”
It’s still not all that uncommon. In, say, a small high school, there might be a dozen Johns, so calling out “Hey, John” across the cafeteria won’t work so well. Even the most common last names, though, aren’t as common as the most common first names, so calling someone by last name is more likely to be unambiguous (with, admittedly, a few exceptions). I admit that I don’t know how women usually address this problem, though.
Re: the OP: if the difference in your manner of address is only related to the gender of the individual that you are addressing, which seems to the case, and if that difference is immaterial to the matter at hand, or to a pre-existing condition of the relationship, then, yes, it’s sexist. You have to be the arbiter of whether it is correct for you or not.
