About a month ago, after receiving a large volume of emails on the topic, the journalists whose discussion forms the highlight of my week in the form of Slate’s Political Gabfest were forced to explain their reasons for referring to Hillary Clinton as ‘Hillary’ while others, such as John McCain, were respectively cited as ‘Senator McCain’. Their explanation made perfect sense – it is, after all, an informal podcast discussion where talk tends to veer away from the serious topics and focus instead on things like why Emily Bazelon has so many keys – and, more importantly, Senator Clinton was styling herself as ‘Hillary’. Her website says ‘Hillary for President’; a ‘top news story’ tells me I should ‘join Hillary’ in calling for Alberto Gonzales’ resignation; and the email I received from her (well, I like to think so, anyway) a couple of days ago thanking me for my (thankfully nonexistent, otherwise the Clinton campaign might have been having election fraud issues) generous donation was signed ‘Hillary’. Obviously there are important political reasons for this move in dissociating her from her husband (which may have been largely negated by hauling Bill around on the campaign trail, but anyway, that’s not the point…) and she’s one of a few candidates who can adopt this ploy. ‘John for President’ might create a few difficulties.

But it’s clear that this is an informal political move. No newspaper is referring to her as ‘Hillary’ in its coverage of the campaign. However, an awful lot are calling her ‘Mrs. Clinton’, and that bothers me.

In all fairness, this isn’t an issue entirely reserved for female candidates – this article from the BBC about John McCain announcing refers to him as ‘Mr. McCain’ throughout…except for the very beginning, where it calls him ‘US Senator John McCain’. This article, however, never refers to Hillary Clinton as ‘Senator Clinton’, and the similar news story on Radio 4’s Six O’Clock News called her ‘Mrs. Clinton’ throughout. It also, in discussing her trip to Syria, referred to Nancy Pelosi as ‘Mrs. Pelosi’. The woman has two titles! Would ‘Speaker Pelosi’ or ‘Congresswoman Pelosi’ really have been all that difficult?

Yes, it does look like I’m being a bit pedantic. We don’t have this issue over here, seeing as MPs have no title. Female MPs, for example Tessa Jowell, tend to be referred to by the neutral ‘Ms.’, and since journalists have to stick to this for women and ‘Mr.’ for men, it doesn’t present any difficulties (The Independent, incidentally, seems to be adopting this tactic for American politicians also). Now, I’m not insinuating that any of this is conscious sexism on the part of journalists. And I’m prepared to accept that ‘Congresswoman’ may become a bit of a mouthful at times on the radio. But surely the BBC would have no trouble coping with ‘Sen. Clinton’ and ‘Speaker Pelosi’ in print? And if not, I’m pretty sure that simply ‘Clinton’ and ‘Pelosi’ would suffice. Readers are capable of figuring out exactly which Clinton the article concerns from the context, especially since, out of all the offices he held, Bill Clinton was never a Senator for New York.

And readers are also capable of discovering from the context that the figures concerned are female. Yes, it is an accomplishment to have the first woman Speaker and first serious female candidate for the Presidency. Let’s not demean them by ignoring their hard-won offices and making constant reference to their marital status…and, most of all, let’s avoid inconsistency. We’ve come too far now to let perceptions of female politicians be coloured by journalistic references. Give the office the respect it deserves, and let’s stick to titles.

Enough With the Hillary – She Deserves to Be Called Sen. Clinton [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]

Filed under: barackobama, culture, election2008, gender, hillaryclinton, johnmccain, uspolitics on April 5th, 2007