Sen. Clinton v. Hillary

I read somewhere, maybe even in two places, about a sort of feminist angst cropping up over the use of “Hillary” to describe Sen. Clinton (D-NY), former First Lady and current Presidential candidate. As in, we say: McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Edwards, Obama… and Hillary. Why the first name? There’s only one Clinton in the race (kinda), so there shouldn’t be any confusion, and so on.

I found myself nodding along, to some degree. Using her first name sort of emphasizes her gender in a way that her last name would not, a potential point against her for that subtle sort of sexism that might creep in unawares. Of course, in a sense, she’s been Hillary for a long time, easily dating back to her husband’s administration.

But, in deference to those questions, I decided to try to refer to her as Clinton, or Sen. Clinton, whenever applicable. Doesn’t happen much, since I don’t discuss politics much, but there you have it. I decided to make the effort.

And then this morning, I saw footage of both her and her daughter, separately, in front of campaign materials in which “HILLARY” was prominently displayed, the biggest name on the signs. It’s even displayed like that in the header graphic on her website.

So my question is, is she giving in there? Is she surrendering to that publicly formed identity, or is she seizing it, “taking it back” as they say about slurs and epithets? What’s the take on that, from a feminist perspective, if she’s embracing it?

Just curious, is all.

Crossposted with klech.net