What’s in a Name?
So I saw my first “Sarah 2012″ bumper sticker the other day. It’s not that I didn’t assume that the political machines wouldn’t start moving as soon as Obama took office, but it was still a bit odd. What struck me was the use of Sarah Palin’s first name. It of course reminded me of how Hillary Clinton simply used her first name as well in her campaigning. It’s an intriguing quirk that powerful women running for office would use their first rather than last names, but I wonder if it is a good or a bad thing.
Part of me wants to believe that it is simply a positive identity statement. I recall thinking through the name issue a few years ago after reading an editorial in Christianity Today. It was written by a black man who detailed why he insists people call him by his title and last name. He knew that historically black men were disrespected and simply called by their first names (like children). For him it was a point of pride and proof that times had changed to be referred to in respectful terms. As I read his piece, I thought that for women the opposite is often true. Historically, we had no individual identity and were referred to as “Mrs. John Does.” Our identity was simply an extension of our husbands, our name his name. So for women to use their first name became a symbol of identity – asserting that we are people with our own distinct name. So when I see the “Sarah” or the “Hillary” campaign signs, I want to believe that it might just be a means of asserting identity.
But there is a part of me that also question if the use of the first names is simply a way to make strong women more acceptable. Our culture still fears powerful women – they get labeled as bitchy or scorned as cold if they are too assertive, knowledgeable, or decisive. So the use of the more familiar first name softens this perception – makes them appear more like children or best friends and less like the scary female leader. Instead of a term of respect it becomes an accommodation and a reminder of how far women still have to go to reach equality.
So what do you think? Why do these women simply use their first names? What is your personal preference in how you are addressed? Do you see difference in levels of respect regarding what people are called?
Tags: equality, feminism, Hillary Clinton, names, Sarah Palin
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:33 am
It is interesting, isn’t it?
I’ve had a hard time with this one and am still not sure what I’d do if I ever run for office (which my hubby says is going to happen one day). I know how I would list my named if I publish, but not political office. It IS that tricky.
Because it’s not just how do I want to represent my name, but also how do I want to represent who I am. A name is part of that.
Even my maiden name is the name of my father, and although it is my mother’s, too, it has only been hers for half of her life. And her maiden name was her father’s. (We named my daughter my maiden name after “both” my parents, but I wished there was a better way.) And my first name is the one used by tv and movies for the snob or the promiscuous, and that’s not good, either. I’ve always despised that. It’s not like that with men’s names.
I go by both my first-maiden-married names, but I still often wish my own mother was represented better in there. (My maiden middle name, which I do also keep, is a combination of my grandmother’s names, and I keep it for that reason alone. Even though it is ridiculous.) But I am the product of my parents, their hard work, and the selfless dedication of my husband to me and our marriage, too. So I like to go by all three. I identify strictly in the context of all three. If I ran for office, I think I would do that. Maybe. But I agree, women who do *that* get even tougher standards than those going by a last name—treated like we hate our husbands or want to rule over them rather than simply beside them. Sigh. Nevermind my friends who hyphenate-they really get a hard time (it took me 6.5 years of marriage to decide whether or not to hyphenate- it was a tough decision for lots of reasons). My friends who hyphenate self-consciously introduce themselves as, “yes, I’m one of THOSE.” I wish they were treated better. I wish we could all just be who we are without the prejudices of former generations breathing beyond their graves.
(Total Side-note: I have good friends who just got married and took each other’s names, as a sign of leave-cleave and mutual taking on of each other’s families. I liked that. I don’t know how you name children in that case, but I like that. I think it would be cool if my hubby took my name and went by three names like I do.)
Regarding Sarah Palin, I recently saw an ad on a GOP web site raising money for SarahPac. What stood out to me was not the name (she DOES need softer side and Sarah helps with that) as much as the fact that her fundraising ad, on the right hand vertical side bar, was a full length ad. A FULL LENGTH, skirt above-the-knee ad! Now I don’t care if her skirt is above her knee in daily life, but in a picture to raise money?! It was employing, “sex sells”- for sure. (Conservative values?) I wanted to scream- all this work done to progress women to equality and you seriously pose for a shoot like that with a photographer at your feet and shooting upwards? (that’s where the shot was taken–at her feet and looking up.) I have been wanting to blog about it for a while, but haven’t yet. I was very upset. How can any of us get any work done with that kind of junk coming from the presidential-candidate level?
One last point: I’ve lived in Chicago (where no one cares what you’re called unless you’re on a seminary campus), Houston (where everyone has an opinion and sexism breathes with the air), Austin (where there is a refreshing respite from the Houston air, but still a strange chivalry that I think is more rooted in sexism than selflessness for *some* men), Akron (where people are cool, but there is still a stange mix of thoughts on how women should be regarded), NOVA (where there is also that strange mix), and now Milwaukee (where people are just lovely, without pretense, and down to earth but it seems like the old school church people are the ones who still have issues with names). I think a lot of this is regional. The south (with the exception of Austin) is just a whole different region and my respect goes out to the women who are working there for equality. It’s a tough place to be a woman in leadership. Much respect. I imagine campaigns might switch names up according to region. You know, like Hillary did with her name, but also her suits and make-up and jewelry. I’ll never forget the transformation that took place between New Hampshire and the morning after New Hampshire when she went South. But, that’s another topic entirely.
Julie, I like what you do on here. (I like what I’ve read of you through God’s Politics, too.) Thanks for your work. My hubby pointed me here a few weeks ago, and I have forwarded this site to more friends who are so glad they found it. So, thanks. Good work, Julie. Julie Clawson. Clawson.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
“Sarah 2012″ is friendly, approachable, woman-next-door (every-woman, a.k.a. “Jane-six pack”) branding. It’s calculated, trust me. In truth, I think, it seems to fit her more than “Palin 2012″, in that is probably is her ‘style’–”Hi, it’s me again, Sarah” -Not, “Greetings again, America-Ms. Palin, here.” It’s gamble too b/c it’s usually what she gets criticized for also…That she doesn’t have the gravitus to do the job-too hockey-mom and ordinary for the big gig of President.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 am
I think you have read into this too much. Women in politics are not so common, and are easily identified by their first name. Plus, politicians are usually viewed as standoffish; I just think they are trying to connect more with Americans.
Good perspective though.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
I wonder if many women are resisting the urge to relate with others through means of power over by way of title.
March 7th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Hillary Clinton also had to distinguish herself from her husband Bill, who had kind of held the position before. They were both active for her campaign, so when someone says “Did you hear what Clinton’s been up to?” you have to ask “Which one?”
March 10th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Good question.
I keep thinking of the way that people use their last names in sports. I never liked this because it seemed distant and cold. Anyplace where a person is referred to by their last name is a place where vulnerability and warmth aren’t allowed. I’m not sure what that has to do with politics though.
Of course, male politicians go by their last names all the time and no one assumes anything about them because of this. I was thinking of how people I know talk about Barack or Obama interchangeably – I’m sure a lot of that has to do with his unique first name.
So, I don’t know. Perhaps Palin and Clinton have felt that they need to assure people that they aren’t heartless and distant. Nice question.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:49 am
On this side of the Atlantic there are few big characters in politics that have been able to get away with using only their first name (in both cases they were men). They both gave the electorate the impression that they were approachable and ordinary.
For Sarah Palin I suspect that it is a way of drawing a line under the old image and creating a new for the 2012 elections
August 25th, 2009 at 1:16 am
Men have always been known for their chivalry. If they are treated well by women, they get treated better in return. If women want to be taken good care of by their men, they need to respect and treat their men with dignity.