I think it’s more a question of equality or incorrect. You refer to a woman exactly the same way as a man providing the position is the same or similar.
Like with Hillary Clinton, the only time I see her as simply “Hillary” is when there may be confusion. I always hear “Secretary of State Clinton,” with no qualifier 'cause everyone knows that’s her.
A few exceptions exist for people with hard names, for example former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich was called “G-Rod” because it was too long for most people.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here with my marketing hat on.
The OP is writing persuasive pieces. he wants teh reader to take a specific action. Only s/he can decide, on a case by case basis, if the letter is persuasive enough. It depends on teh reader’s position and the promoted person’s points of interest, and any connections that can be drawn between them.
If you are meeting your goals for setting meetings or whatever your goal is, then keep doing what you are doing. It has nothing to do with sexism and everything with using the tools of rhetoric effectively in a professional context.
There’s a larger selection of popular women’s names than popular men’s names, so this problem doesn’t arise for us as often as it does for men. But in a large group you might still wind up with several women with the same first name. In my experience they will usually then be called by their full names: Sarah Smith, Sarah Jones, etc.
It’s rare for a women to be called by just her surname in social situations, but I did know a few girls in college who were usually called by just their last names. One had a very common first name and an unusual but short and easy to pronounce last name. Most of the others were athletes – I guess having your last name on the back of your jersey encourages other people to call you that.
If, however, you aspire to exceed your goals and refrain from offending a majority of the people reading your letter, your would be wise to read the definition of sexism and understand that this is a perfect example of discrimination based on sex. The tools of rhetoric change with changing perceptions of what is appropriate. Sexism at the professional level is dated and ineffectual.
He didn’t say people were objecting to what he wrote at all - yet you perceive it as a majority?
he is in the business of persuading people. If what he is doing works, and he has no reason to believe it could be working better, then he shouldn’t change.
If he thinks he might find some marginal improvement, then he knows as a marketer to conduct a series of small tests first to confirm his hypothesis before risking his livelihood wholesale.
/hijack just think of the confusion if Hillary had won the Presidency and had appointed Bill as SecState. The Washington Post editors would have collapsed in exhaustion figuring out how to address both in the same story. President Clinton and Secretary of State President Clinton met today to discuss… /hijack
I can think of a reason for your behaviour other than unconscious bias: surnames generally sound masculine.
Family names are generally derived from professions, first names or places.
In the case of professions, they were normally derived from the job of “the man of the house”, so would often implicitly or deliberately be masculine.
In the case of first names, I mean when people have a surname that means “child of so and so” – usually it will be a man’s name, and usually it will be “son of” e.g. Johnson, so again masculine.
That leaves surnames derived from place names, which I guess are gender-neutral for the most part.
So anyway, my point is, surnames are more commonly masculine than feminine so perhaps this is subconsciously why you tend to use women’s first names instead.
btw: This is a great free site for surname origins (link)
Aside from the personal connection some people have with him, he’s the only president with the name Barack, and the only Barack most people are aware of. There have been three presidents named George, including two named George Bush, and it’s a much more common name in the U.S.
The OP is asking about a habit, not a professional tool. And yes, it’s a sexist habit in that he’s treating men as more professional than women.
There’s also just the aspect of if it “sounds weird”, though.
Consider comparing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Secretary of State James Baker. Sure, “Secretary of State Rice went on to say…” or “Secretary of State Baker went on to say” both sound fine…
but whereas “Baker then added the policy was” seems to flow logically, whereas even after referring to Condi Rice, subsequent mentions in an article that just say “Rice then added that”… it seems to me this would confuse the reader? You’d have to go back and say “Wait, Rice? Oh right Condi Rice, okay.”
But then you wouldn’t refer to her just by first name in print (even a name like that), because that’s just too disrespectful.
I think the Clintons are a hard case to use for comparison because initially more articles were about him, and he was an elected official whereas she was not [commentary aside]… but then the roles reversed and she was an elected official and he was not.
But take any female public figure where there isn’t necessarily an equally famous husband with the same last name. Does it not seem awkward if a story read “Angelina Jolie was in Brazil. Jolie was representing the UN etc.”?
I think the British style of writing tends to get around this by keeping the salutation even after first reference. Mr. Brown went on to say, Ms. Johnson was selected to chair the committee, etc. Though now that I think of it, the FT seems to be moving away from that?
No, that’s exactly how it would and should be written most of the time. Unless perhaps you are an entertainment writer who calls her “Angie,” or if you prefer to call her “the Wanted star” or some such thing.
That’s exactly how she would be referenced in any respectable British news article. I’m not counting tabloids in this, obviously.
I think the point is that, EVEN IF you think it sounds awkward, because as human beings we often take a while to shrug off our own learned behaviours from the past, it doesn’t mean it’s right anymore.
Any American newspaper that follows Associated Press style refers to people – regardless of sex or whether they are entertainers or celebrities – by the bare family name on second reference. It’s so standard, that some people don’t even notice it and that’s why they seem to be surprised when it’s called to their attention. The New York Times is one of the few publications that preserves honorifics like Mr..
Using sexism as part of your sales technique, in a way that demeans the very people you are trying to promote, is not appropriate, however it affects your bottom line. (And besides, I would be truly astonished to discover it had any impact on the effectiveness of his work in any way).
Wow I wonder what persuasive marketing material is in your world, that is both effective, and not offensive in any way to anyone?
The OP is not writing new releases, he is writing ads with a very clear action point desired from a very clear, not general, audience.
Sexism has nothing to do with it. If s/he could personalize it for the needs of each individual reader, s/he would. Why? To best influence the reader to take the action. S/he has a professional, ethical, and possibly fiduciary responsibility to sacrifice political correctness for results if that is necessary to achieve them.
Now, I would say that the same claim would turn it the other way for a different audience or different topic or both. If s/he is writing blurbs summarizing state of the art research in some scientific field for Scientific American or New Scientist, then yeah, special effort to treat the genders equally is required because itis expected by the audience.
But it is not an absolute rule, it is totally due to the audience, the material, and the message being intended. You think Playboy, Maxim, Cosmo or Redbook treat genders equally in every possible measure? I don’t.
Would you chastise them for differentiating their material from the competition to meet their desired audience on their own terms in order to be seen as relevant? I wouldn’t.
The specific form of writing asked about in the OP are persuasive letters with a clear action item. Whatever it takes is fine by me. It is just a marketing pitch.
Note the actual words the OP used. Notes to reporters and editors. Experts. Not Maxim or Cosmo. The business world, not the entertainment industry. Authors, not pole dancers. Seminars, not talk shows.
Everybody else has been careful to use the OP’s actual context as a reference. You are the only one who is throwing out that context. Without that context you point is irrelevant here.
I am also astounded that anyone who pretends to be in the business uses “ads” in this fashion. Marketing, promotion, and advertising are separate fields with separate contexts, separate procedures, and separate mores. People in those fields get as annoyed if you mix them up as, well, as women who are called by their first names in a business context.
/hijack