As children, referring to authority figures by their surname was the only appropriate option. The societal etiquette to address someone by their last name was ingrained into everyone at a young age. Respecting someone’s authority meant using their surname, an essential formality to demonstrate good manners. This societal etiquette taught us the importance of acknowledging someone’s status and position.
As we mature, we transition into the professional world, where such etiquette becomes commonplace. Using surnames to address individuals is no longer limited to addressing a friend’s parent, but to denote positions of power or respect in professional settings. The most famous male scientists, philosophers, authors, and politicians are almost always referred to by their last name: Einstein, Newton, Marx, Tocqueville, Locke, Nietzsche, Nixon, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc. However, this unspoken rule disappears when it comes to females. Rather than using their last name, it is more common to use their first or full name: Marie Curie, Jane Austen, Emily Dickinson, etc.
This pattern reflects societal attitudes towards gender and authority. In the political sphere, it also underscores the persistent challenges women face in being recognized and respected in their own right, independent of their relationships or associations with men. To strive for gender equality, it is necessary that we change this societal etiquette to language that establishes men and women as equals.
A History of Using Surnames in Politics
In politics, this phenomenon is especially prevalent. In political broadcasting, a study found that speakers were more than twice as likely to use a surname when speaking about a man than when speaking about a woman. And throughout history, female presidential candidates have been more commonly and informally referred to by their first names compared to their male counterparts.
For instance, Victoria Clafin Woodhull (a candidate in 1872), Belva Bennet Lockwood (1884), Margaret Chase Smith (1964), Shirley Chisholm (1972), Patricia Schroeder (1987), Elizabeth Dole (2000), and Carol Moseley Braun (2004) were referred to by their first names approximately 5 percent of the time in newspaper articles. In contrast, their male competitors were referred to in this manner less than 1 percent of the time.
During the 2015 presidential race, Hilliary Clinton made history by becoming the first woman to represent a major party in a United States presidential election. Despite this momentous victory, gender discrimination still infiltrated her success. While her opponent Donald Trump was almost always referred to as “Trump” by the media, citizens, and politicians, she was almost only referred to as “Hillary” or “Hilliary Clinton”. Prior to the 2016 election, she experienced similar discrimination.
For the 2008 Democratic primary in the United States, television newspeople were more likely to refer to Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton by surname. However, this difference may be explained by Hillary Clinton’s more frequent use of her first name in her campaign, possibly as a way of distinguishing herself from her husband.
But a study found that sexism trumped the evidence pointing to her choice to market herself by firstname and the fact she had a politically prominent spouse at the time. Hillary Clinton was referred to by her first name four times more often than her main male rival, Barack Obama. The other male senators in the nomination race were never mentioned by their first names. This discrepancy appears to be largely due to male news anchors, who referred to Hillary Clinton by her first name 11 percent of the time, compared to less than 1 percent by female news anchors, indicating their underlying sexist attitudes.
Throughout the extended Democratic primary, the candidates were mentioned hundreds of thousands of times by journalists, leading to thousands of stories that subtly differentiated treatment between Hillary Clinton and her male competitors. This discrepancy in naming conventions might have been unintentional. However, given the extensive viewership and increased coverage associated with presidential elections, these subtle distinctions could have undermined her credibility without overtly appearing sexist. Consequently, this type of sexism has a more subtle nature.
Similarly occuring today, we see that Vice President Kamala Harris is just “Kamala” while President Joe Biden earns “Biden”. There are many more examples that demonstrate this feature of gender bias both domestically and internationally: Michelle v. Obama, Angela Merkel v. Merkel, Jacinda Adern v. Ardern, Theresa May v. May, or Elizabeth Warren v. Warren. We all call these women by their first names, rather than their surname.
What could account for the gender disparity in the usage of surnames? Initially, last names might be more closely linked to men, as in numerous cultures, women’s surnames are often less fixed, frequently switching to a male partner’s surname after marriage. Secondly, adding a first name can serve as a way to indicate the gender of the person being discussed. Male is often seen as the default assumption, especially in prestigious fields like science, which are frequently dominated by men. As a result, indicating gender with a first name may be considered more important for a female target, whether intentional or not. Thirdly, individuals might be more inclined to pay attention to a woman’s first name, as it signals her uncommon gender in male-dominated fields. Consequently, womens’ first names could be more readily remembered and utilized.
Implications for Gender Equality
In essence, this seemingly minor issue is an indicator of the broader challenges of gender equality. According to the Pew Research Center, women are already four times as likely as men to say that they were treated as if they weren’t competent enough because of their gender. With the added gender bias of surnames, it causes women to feel like their peers think of them as even less competent.
The media, as a democratic institution, has a responsibility to reduce gender disparities in representation by treating female and male candidates equally (assuming all other factors are equal). Therefore, to ensure equivalent coverage for candidates and to advance the broader objective of gender equality, there should be a “de-gendering” approach.
The first recommendation involves establishing a “universal” language standard for all candidates, regardless of gender or demographics, with news producers and managers responsible for setting and enforcing clear policies. This approach would not only help eliminate the overtly sexist comments, but also address the disparity in naming, ensuring equal treatment of all candidates.
Second, the imbalance of power in defining reality through language, perpetuates sexual inequality. In the above referenced study’s data, 60 percent of news people are male, and 73 percent of our observations come from male newspeople. To empower women in political discourse, we should advocate for increased female representation in news programming. Despite improvements in female representation, male newspeople still dominate campaign reporting, contributing to the gendered language discussed in this article. Addressing gender disparity in news coverage is crucial for achieving gender equality in politics.
Aside from the media, democracy emphasizes equality, freedom, and the protection of individuals rights, including the right to be free from discrimination based on sex or gender. There are laws and policies in place to combat sexism and promote gender equality. These may include laws against gender-based discrimination in employment, education, and other areas, as well as policies aimed at addressing gender-based violence and harassment. However, societal norms such as the one-gendered use of surnames may alter their effectiveness.
Achieving gender equality requires a shift in those societal norms to use language that portrays men and women as equals. If male politicians are referred to by their last name, women should also be referred to by their last name. In an already male-dominated world, women are owed the same respect and recognition as their male peers.
Louisville Political Review 