Some brownskirt (see the list of domanisms, below) alleges that it’s “sexist” to call Hillary [sic] Clinton by her first name (as has been done by, for example, the past-and-future-candidate’s own “Ready for Hillary” [sic] campaign). “Clinton”, though, is her married name; isn’t it “sexist” to use that? I suspect that the tendency to refer to the former First
10 April 2015
Uncommon Commentary #451: Why Should Anyone Called “Hillary” Be Cheerful?
(“Cheerful” is what “Hilary”—this being the correct spelling—means. “Hillary”
is the surname of the conqueror of Mount Everest.)
Some brownskirt (see the list of domanisms, below) alleges that it’s “sexist” to call Hillary [sic] Clinton by her first name (as has been done by, for example, the past-and-future-candidate’s own “Ready for Hillary” [sic] campaign). “Clinton”, though, is her married name; isn’t it “sexist” to use that? I suspect that the tendency to refer to the former FirstLady by only her first name is either the
result of a desire to avoid
feminism-incited controversy, or a subconscious acknowledgement of the fact
that (as I noted in a previous uncommon commentary), in our patrilineal
culture, there really is no such thing as a feminine surname. In any case, I have the solution to this
pseudo-problem: Let’s start referring to her by a title instead. I propose “Supreme Hag of the USA”.
Some brownskirt (see the list of domanisms, below) alleges that it’s “sexist” to call Hillary [sic] Clinton by her first name (as has been done by, for example, the past-and-future-candidate’s own “Ready for Hillary” [sic] campaign). “Clinton”, though, is her married name; isn’t it “sexist” to use that? I suspect that the tendency to refer to the former First
