False equivalencies disguising sexism
Dear New York Times:
I'm getting increasingly upset about this. Thus I must vent.
Hillary Clinton has been a US senator and a US Secretary of State. It doesn't matter whether you like, support, or plan to vote for her.
If you're going to skip her first name in your article about her but use an honorific, then you need to refer to her as either Secretary Clinton or Sen. Clinton. The former is preferred because Secretary of State is one of the top positions in the free world.
Writing "Mrs. Clinton" because you are contrasting her to "Mr. Trump" is putting a silk cloth over a turd. He has no such honorifics, but that's not her fault. If she were male, she would have gotten her title(s).
Stop being a newspaper from 1962. Herr Trump has already threatened to prevent your paper from reporting on his rallies. Why equate him to a former senator?
I'm getting increasingly upset about this. Thus I must vent.
Hillary Clinton has been a US senator and a US Secretary of State. It doesn't matter whether you like, support, or plan to vote for her.
If you're going to skip her first name in your article about her but use an honorific, then you need to refer to her as either Secretary Clinton or Sen. Clinton. The former is preferred because Secretary of State is one of the top positions in the free world.
Writing "Mrs. Clinton" because you are contrasting her to "Mr. Trump" is putting a silk cloth over a turd. He has no such honorifics, but that's not her fault. If she were male, she would have gotten her title(s).
Stop being a newspaper from 1962. Herr Trump has already threatened to prevent your paper from reporting on his rallies. Why equate him to a former senator?