Now that Hillary is officially in the running, prepare to start hearing the s-word. Don’t like her politics? Sexist! Disagree with her positions? Sexist! Still have issues with Benghazi? Sexist!
The s-bomb will be dropping left and right over the next 18 months during an election season that’s bound to witness a violent collision of culture and politics. Obama’s exit will end the age of racial politics just in time for Hillary to usher in the era of gender politics.
But for many of her female supporters, the gender war has already begun, and the first big battle is being fought over her name.
You see, if you do what I just did and call her “Hillary,” that makes you sexist now, too.
Since we’re used to calling presidents and candidates by their last names (i.e. Obama, Bush), some are claiming that calling Hillary “Hillary” is too informal and therefore disrespectful and therefore demeaning and therefore, of course, sexist.
One sweet soul on Twitter wrote: “It’s Hillary CLINTON you f - - - s, not ‘Hillary!’ ”
Oh, boy, er . . . girl. This will be a long 18 months.
First of all, she’s actually not the only one. Once upon a time we had a “Teddy” and a “Silent Cal” and an “Honest Abe,” and even today, plenty of people say “Mitt” or “Jeb” without eliciting any raised eyebrows. (And hey, it’s not like we’re reducing her name to just letters — remember “Dubya,” FDR and JFK?)
But even if she were the first or only, doesn’t that just make sense? It might bother feminists, but the fact remains that Hillary first came onto the stage as First Lady Hillary — he was “Clinton,” she was “Hillary.”
And doesn’t sticking with that model actually help avoid confusion? Today, when someone talks about Clinton this or Clinton that, isn’t it fair to wonder, “Wait — which one?”
And this isn’t unique to Hillary — we would have the same scenario if Michelle Obama ran for office someday. We would refer to Barack as “Obama,” and to Michelle as “Michelle.”
Sorry folks, but it’s just easier that way. Both Bill and Barack got there first, so they got dibs on the association with their last names.
But speaking of last names, shouldn’t feminists be just as upset at the thought of calling her Mrs. Clinton? Don’t true feminists recoil at the idea of referring to a woman by her husband’s name?
I thought they were moving away from that stifling, antiquated tradition.
So, first it was sexist to make a woman take her husband’s name, but now it’s sexist if you don’t call her by her husband’s name? Is anyone else confused?
Either way, all of this ridiculous hullabaloo can be summed up in three words: First World problems.
Right now, there are tens of millions of women across the globe who are not allowed to work, not allowed to run for office, not even allowed to vote.
But here in America, we’re squabbling like children about what name to call our female presidential candidate working to be democratically elected to the highest office in the country to become one of the world’s most powerful people . . . and I’m supposed to believe some part of this is somehow sexist?
Please.
Call her Hillary, Hillary Clinton or whatever variation you like, but please, don’t cry sexism where there is none.