Read on Twitter
Has anyone done a proper study of politicians (or experts& #39; etc.) names and gender that is more than just the fact that women get called by their given names more than men? ( @wordspinster probably knows) A few thoughts:
1/ It feels uneven when women are called by 1st name (Kamala, Hillary) & men by surname (Pence, Trump). It feels disrespectful. But: since surnames are genly men& #39;s (husband& #39;s, father& #39;s) & (for many) more changing cd using given name also feel like a more feminist alternative?
2/ Women& #39;s names vary more in our culture than men& #39;s, making them less ambiguous. Not a lot of Kamalas in the public eye, but plenty of Mikes. If we took account of commonality of the given/sur-names, would it *just* look like a gender diff? Compare Boris Johnson, Kamala Harris
3/ To even things out, why not work toward calling all primarily by their given names, rather than keeping with the (one could say patriarchal) tradition of surnames. Surnames trad. went with titles, but titles have gone out of style. ...
3a/ ....Surname use shows distance, possibly subservience. I& #39;d rather think of my elected reps as people who work for me (and everybody else), not as our higher-ups. (Then again, the relationship is not chummy.)
4/ The use of initials seems interesting, particularly for women, whose names are often longer (both in words and in syllables) than men& #39;s: AOC, RBG, HRC. Also used for men, of course: FDR, LBJ, MLK, JFK. Other than having three name-parts, what determines when initials get used?