The article quoted one Monica Warek. “I think it shows the level of inequality that still exists in the workforce and just in general in society.”
The writer of the piece must agree with the premise; she referred to the would be presidential candidate as either "Clinton" or "Hillary Clinton".
The article goes on to say that "some wonder whether calling a female candidate by her first name reinforces gender stereotypes".
Wishing to present both sides, I suppose, the article speculates that same may prefer to call her by her first name because an online search for "Hillary" produces mostly news stories about the 2016 race, while a search of “Clinton” leads to information about Bill.
I performed my own little online experiment; I Googled "Hillary", "Clinton" and "Hillary Clinton". I captured screen shots of the results. As far as news stories go, the results were pretty much the same with all three; the biggest difference being that the search for "Clinton" put Bill's wikipedia bio above hers.
The most striking differences came when looking at the images associated with each name. As one can see in the screenshots, the images associated with "Clinton" were nearly entirely of Bill, while the other searches produced images of her.
It appears to me that the images found with the search for "Hillary" turned negative faster that the images associated with "Hillary Clinton". The "vampire photos" came up quicker when "Hillary" was used in the search engine.
What does my little experiment prove? Probably, not much. It's possible that "Hillary" may have more negative results, but with all searches, results could change as time goes on.
We'll know the answer when we hear how Mrs Clinton's friends and enemies refer to her.
No comments:
Post a Comment